EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

46464 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 

L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that 

agencies publish these notices in the 

Federal Register to allow for public 

participation. This notice announces the 

meeting of the Biomass Research and 

Development Technical Advisory 

Committee 

DATES: August 1, 2002. 

TIME: 8:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: Hilton Crystal City Hotel at 

National Airport, Crystal Room, 2399 

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 

22202. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas E. Kaempf, Designated Federal 

Officer for the Committee, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-7766. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of 

Meeting: To provide advice and 

guidance that promotes research and 

development leading to the production 

of biobased industrial products. 

Tentative Agenda: Agenda will 

include discussions on the following: 

• Full committee discussion on the 

development of a Vision document for 

federal biomass research and 

development programs. 

Public Participation: In keeping with 

procedures, members of the public are 

welcome to observe the business of the 

Biomass Research and Development 

Technical Advisory Committee. To 

attend the meeting and/or to make oral 

statements regarding any of the items on 

the agenda, you should contact Douglas 

E. Kaempf at 202-586-7766 or 

Bioenergy@ee.doe.gov (email). You 

must make your request for an oral 

statement at least 5 business days before 

the meeting. Members of the public will 

be heard in the order in which they sign 

up at the beginning of the meeting. 

Reasonable provision will be made to 

include the scheduled oral statements 

on the agenda. The Chair of the 

Committee will make everv effort to 

hear the views of all interested parties. 

If you would like to file a written 

statement with the Committee, you may 

do so either before or after the meeting. 

The Chair will conduct the meeting to 

facilitate the orderly conduct of 

business. 

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting 

will be available for public review and 

copying within 60 days at the Freedom 

of Information Public Reading Room; 

Room 1E-190; Forrestal Building; 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Issued at Washington, DC on July 9, 2002. 

Rachel M. Samuel, 

Deputy Advisory Committee Management 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 02-17636 Filed 7-12-02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Docket No. EE-DET-02-001] 

Building Energy Standards Program: 

Determination Regarding Energy 

Efficiency Improvements in the Energy 

Standard for Buildings, Except LowRise Residential Buildings, ASHRAE/ 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999. 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE or Department) today determines 

that the 1999 edition of the Energy 

Standard for Buildings, Except Low-Rise 

Residential Buildings, American Society 

of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Illuminating Engineering Society of 

North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1-

1999, (Standard 90.1-1999 or the 1999 

edition) would achieve greater energy 

efficiency in buildings, except low-rise 

residential buildings, than the 1989 

edition (Standard 90.1-1989 or the 1989 

edition). As a result of this positive 

determination regarding Standard 90.1-

1999, each State is required to certify 

that it has reviewed and updated the 

provisions of its commercial building 

code regarding energy efficiency to meet 

or exceed Standard 90.1-1999 for any 

"building" within the meaning of 

Section 303(2) of the Energy 

Conservation and Production Act, as 

amended. This Notice provides 

guidance to States on Certifications, and 

Requests for Extensions of Deadlines for 

Certification Statements. 

DATES: Certifications and Requests for 

Extensions of Deadlines, with regard to 

Standard 90.1-1999, are due at DOE on 

or before July 15, 2004. 

ADDRESSES: Certifications, or Requests 

for Extensions of Deadlines should be 

directed to the Assistant Secretary for 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Office of Building Technology 

Assistance, EE-42, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. 20585-

0121. Envelopes or packages should be 

labeled, "State Certification of 

Commercial Building Codes Regarding 

Energy Efficiency." 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean 

J. Boulin, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, 

Mail Station EE-2K, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-

0121, Phone: 202-586-9870, FAX: 202-

586-1233. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

A. Statutory Requirements 

B. Background 

1. Publication of Standard 90.1-1999 

2. Workshop and Comments on Analysis 

Methodology 

3. Comments on Preliminary Quantitative 

and Textual Analyses 

C. Summary of the Comparative Analysis 

1. Quantitative Analysis 

2. Detailed Textual Analysis 

D. Determination Statement 

II. Results of Quantitative Analysis 

III. Discussion of Detailed Textual Analysis 

A. Lighting and Power 

1. Interior Lighting Power Exemptions 

2. Exterior Lighting Power 

3. Lighting Controls-Interior 

4. Ballast Efficacv Factor 

5. Exit Signs 0 

6. Interior Lighting Power-Whole 

Building 

7. Interior Lighting Power-Space-BySpace 

8. End Use Metering 

9. Transformers 

10. Motors 

B. Building Envelope 

1. Air Leakage 

2. Insulation Installation 

3. Allowance for Speculative Buildings 

4. Envelope Thermal Transmittance in 

Cold Climates 

5. Skylight Thermal Transmittance and 

Solar Heal Gain 

6. Slab-On-Grade and Below Grade Wall 

Insulation 

7. Roof Thermal Transmittance 

8. Floors Over Unconditioned Spaces 

9. Opaque Wall Thermal Transmittance 

10. Window Thermal Transmittance and 

Solar Heat Gain 

11. Opaque Doors 

C. Mechanical Equipment and Systems 

1. Load Calculations and Sizing 

2. Separate air distribution systems 

3. Temperature Controls 

4. Off-Hour Controls and Setback 

5. Dampers 

6. Humidity Control 

7. Radiant Heating 

8. Ventilation 

9. Pipe and Duct Insulation 

10. Heat Recovery 

11. Completion Requirements 

12. Simultaneous Heating and Cooling 

Controls 

13. Economizer Controls 

14. Fan System Design Criteria 

15. Pumping System Design 

16. Temperature Reset Controls 

17. Hot Gas Bypass Restriction 

18. Heating Ventilation and AirConditioning Equipment 

19. Service Water Heating Equipment 

Efficiency 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 46465 

20. Service Water Heating Controls 

D. Energy Cost Budget 

E. Conclusion About Detailed Textual 

Analysis 

IV. Filing Certification Statements with DOE 

A. Review and Update 

B. Certification 

C. Request for Extensions 

D. Submittals 

Appendix A. Description of Proposed 

Analysis 

Appendix B. Description of the Quantitative 

Analysis 

I. Analysis Methodology 

IL Simulation Input Characterization 

A. Envelope 

B. Lighting 

1. Lighting Power-1989 Edition 

2. Lighting Power-1999 Edition 

C. Mechanical Equipment 

1. Cooling Equipment 

2. Space Heating Equipment 

3. Economizers 

4. Service Water Heating Equipment 

D. Aggregation of Results 

I. Introduction 

A. Statutory Requirements 

Title III of the Energy Conservation 

and Production Act (ECP A), establishes 

requirements for the Building Energy 

Efficiency Standards Program (42 U.S.C. 

6831-6837). 

ECP A provides that whenever the 

Standard 90.1-1989, or any successor to 

that code, is revised, the Secretary must 

make a determination, not later than 12 

months after such revision, whether the 

revised code would improve energy 

efficiency in commercial buildings and 

must publish notice of such 

determination in the Federal Register 

(42 U.S.C. 6833 (b)(2)(A)). The Secretary 

may determine that the revision of 

Standard 90.1-1989, or any successor 

thereof, improves the level of energy 

efficiency in commercial buildings. If 

the Secretary makes a determination 

that the revised standard will improve 

energy efficiency in commercial 

buildings, then not later than two years 

after the date of the publication of such 

affirmative determination, each State is 

required to certify that it has reviewed 

and updated the provisions of its 

commercial building code regarding 

energy efficiency with respect to the 

revised or successor code for any 

"building" within the meaning of 

Section 303(2) of ECPA. The State must 

include in its certification a 

demonstration that the provisions of its 

commercial building code, regarding 

energy efficiency, meet or exceed the 

revised standard (in this case, Standard 

90.1-1999) (42 U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(B)(i)). 

If the Secretary makes a determination 

that the revised standard will not 

improve energy efficiency in 

commercial buildings, State commercial 

codes shall meet or exceed Standard 

90.1-1989 or the last revised standard 

for which the Secretary has made a 

positive determination (42 U.S.C. 

6833(b )(2)(B)(ii)). 

ECP A also requires the Secretary to 

permit extensions of the deadlines for 

the State certification if a state can 

demonstrate that it has made a good 

faith effort to comply with the 

requirements of Section 304(b) and that 

it has made significant progress in doing 

so (42 U.S.C. 6833(c)). 

B. Background 

1. Publication of Standard 90.1-1999 

The American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) and the 

Illuminating Engineering Society of 

North America (IESNA) approved the 

publication of the 1999 edition of 

Energy Standard for Buildings Except 

Low-rise Residential Buildings, in June 

1999. Several appeals to this decision 

were heard and subsequently rejected 

and the 1999 edition was published in 

February 2000. 

The Standard was developed under 

American National Standards Institute 

approved consensus standard 

procedures. The American Society of 

Heating Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers submitted the 

standard to the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) for 

designation as an approved ANSI 

standard. In December 2000, after 

several appeals by the American Gas 

Association, the 1999 edition of 

Standard 90.1 was approved as an 

American National Standard. 

2. Workshop and Comments on 

Analysis Methodology 

In arriving at a determination, the 

Department first reviewed all significant 

changes between the 1989 edition and 

the 1999 edition of Standard 90.1. 

Standard 90.1 is complex and covers a 

broad spectrum of the energy related 

components and systems in buildings 

ranging from simple storage buildings to 

complex hospitals and laboratories. The 

size of buildings addressed range from 

those smaller than single family homes 

to the largest buildings in the world. 

The approach to development of the 

standard changed from that used for the 

1989 edition, as did the scope and the 

way components were defined. We 

concluded that a simple comparison of 

the two editions would not be possible. 

Therefore, we decided to hold a public 

workshop and seek public comment on 

our proposed analysis methodology. On 

February 8, 2000, we proposed a 

methodology, announced a public 

workshop, and sought public comment. 

65 FR 6195. On February 17, 2000, we 

held a workshop to obtain comment on 

the approach we proposed to use. See 

the summary of the proposed approach 

in Appendix A. 

We requested comments and/or data 

concerning issues relating to the 

comparative analysis of Standard 90.1-

1989 and Standard 90.1-1999. We 

especially expressed interest in any 

comments or data regarding: (1) The 

seven building types selected for 

analysis; (2) the 11 representative 

climate locations proposed for the 

analysis; (3) the frequency of use of 

alternative paths to compliance in 

building standards (e.g., space-by-space 

versus whole building lighting power 

allowances); (4) new non-residential 

building construction data by state or 

census division and building type; (5) 

data to quantify the impact of Standard 

90.1-1999 on additions and renovations 

to existing buildings; (6) the prevalence 

of the semi-heated building envelope 

subcategory in the building types 

proposed for analysis; and (7) specific 

comments on the preliminary energy 

savings analysis distributed in June 

1999. 

We received comments from 

American Electric Power, the American 

Gas Association, the Edison Electric 

Institute, GARD Analytics, Inc., the New 

Buildings Institute, and Virginia Power. 

American Electric Power, the Edison 

Electric Institute, and Virginia Power 

recognized that, given the numerous 

assumptions required to simulate the 

potential impact of the new standard, 

reasonable minds could differ over both 

the specific model employed and over 

the assumptions used in those models. 

For that reason, they cautioned the 

Department against becoming involved 

in a lengthy process aimed at 

reconciling all approaches. They 

expressed belief in the results of the 

initial analysis that the 1999 edition 

would save energy across a broad 

section of commercial buildings. We 

recognized their cautions about the 

complexity of the problem and 

magnitude of alternative compliance 

approaches in the standard. However, 

we felt obligated to extend the analysis 

as far as feasible. 

The New Buildings Institute 

supported the proposed methodology 

for the purpose of a simple yes/no 

determination but felt that the proposed 

methodology was inadequate for 

determining energy savings estimates 

associated with using Standard 90.1-

1999. Here too, we recognized the 

difficulty of absolute quantification of 

savings, and make no such claim for the 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

46466 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135 /Monday, July 15, 2002 /Notices 

analysis on which this determination 

relies. 

The American Gas Association argued 

that the Department should rely solely 

on quantitative estimates of energy 

savings as a means of comparing the two 

editions of Standard 90.1 and minimize 

the use of qualitative comparisons. We 

tend to agree with the previous 

comments from American Electric 

Power, the Edison Electric Institute, and 

Virginia Power, and the New Buildings 

Institute regarding the details of the 

analysis, and concluded that it was 

necessary to note changes that 

individually, or in net, result in 

increased energy efficiency, even where 

they could not be accurately quantified. 

We believe that States can use this 

information when upgrading their 

energy codes. 

The American Gas Association also 

expressed a strong belief that the 

analysis should be based on the 

minimum requirements of each edition 

and not on typical design and 

construction practice. In the area of 

heating, ventilating and air-conditioning 

and water heating equipment, the 

American Gas Association expressed the 

opinion that the Department should 

include analysis of equipment market 

share impacts in its analysis. It also 

expressed the opinion that the analysis 

be based on consensus forecasts of 

commercial construction activity, rather 

than on existing building stock, and use 

these forecasts as the basis for energy 

consumption calculations. It was 

concerned that the Department select 

the correct version of the 1989 edition 

for the baseline and recommended that 

the baseline be the 1989 edition plus all 

addenda to that edition, up to the 

publication of the 1999 edition. Finally, 

the American Gas Association expressed 

the belief that the analysis must include 

a cost-effectiveness and economic 

justification review. 

We agree that the analysis should be 

based on the minimum requirements of 

each standard but in assessing the 

impact of those requirements, we 

believe that assessment should be based 

on a realistic estimate of what is being 

built. We believe that we have done this 

in our analysis. 

We do not believe it is necessary for 

the Department to perform a 

quantitative analysis of the likely effects 

of Standard 90.1-1999 on fuel and 

equipment market shares in order to 

support a conclusion regarding the 

likely net energy savings that would 

result. Without performing a 

quantitative analysis of the possible 

effects on fuel or equipment market 

shares, there are several reasons why the 

Department has concluded that these 

effects are likely to be insignificant. 

First, since Standard 90.1-1999 places 

the same requirements on buildings 

with different types of heating or 

cooling equipment (and this was also 

true of previous ASHRAE standards), 

the impacts of the standard on most 

building costs should be identical, 

regardless of the type of energy or 

equipment used. Second, if the 

comparative costs and market shares of 

equipment used in buildings covered by 

the ASHRAE standard are influenced by 

other administrative actions taken by 

the Department of Energy or other 

government agencies, any effects on fuel 

market shares that result from such 

other actions cannot properly be 

attributed to the ASHRAE standard that 

is the subject of today's determination. 

Finally the choice of fuels and 

equipment by new building designers, 

builders, and owners is affected by 

many factors, only a few of which are 

related to the comparative first costs of 

the equipment and building systems 

involved. In cases where comparative 

equipment and system costs are a 

significant factor in fuel choice, the 

small changes in these costs that might 

be attributable to the ASHRAE 90.1-

1999 building standard are very 

unlikely to significantly affect market 

shares or the resulting energy savings. 

We considered using what the 

American Gas Association referred to as 

consensus forecasts of commercial 

construction activity, rather than data 

on the existing building stock in our 

analyses. We concluded, however, that 

available forecasts are not really 

consensus forecasts. These latter 

forecasts are extremely short term in 

perspective, and reflect that the 

construction market is likely to remain 

volatile over the intermediate term. We 

have therefore used the new 

construction square footage data from 

2001-2010, extracted from the Energy 

Information Administration's National 

Energy Modeling System, as the basis 

for our analysis. 

Furthermore, AGA believes that each 

addendum should be treated as a 

revision to the standard, thus requiring 

DOE to issue a determination for each 

addendum pursuant to Section 304(b)(2) 

of ECP A, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6834 

(b)(2). AGA has also questioned the 

appropriateness of the baseline DOE 

used when comparing the revised 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 with its 

predecessor, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-

1989, in order to determine whether the 

new ASHRAE Standard improves 

energy efficiency. AGA would have 

DOE use ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989 

with all of the addenda up until the 

publication of ASHRAE 90.1-1999 for 

the comparison. 

Section 304(b)(2) ofECPA, as 

amended, which applies to commercial 

building code updates, requires that 

when the provisions of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1-1989, or any successor 

standard, are revised, the Secretary 

shall, not later than 12 months after the 

date of such revision, publish a notice 

in the Federal Register, with its 

determination as to whether the revised 

standard will improve energy efficiency 

in commercial buildings. Once the 

Secretary issues a determination, States 

have two years, with possible 

extensions for good faith efforts, to 

comply with the certification 

requirements in Section 304(b)(2). 

DOE interprets the language in 

Section 304(b)(2) to mean that when a 

comprehensive revision of the ASHRAE 

Standard is published, which in this 

case is ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999, 

then that revised or successor standard 

triggers the Secretary's obligation to 

issue a determination as to whether the 

revised standard improves energy 

efficiency. This determination is made 

by comparing the revised or successor 

standard to the last predecessor 

standard. 

While it is true that the addenda 

process is part of the ongoing 

maintenance of the standard and thus 

continually modifies the existing 

standard over time, it would be an 

unreasonable reading of the statute to 

categorize each addendum in this 

maintenance process as a "revised or 

successor standard" within the meaning 

of Section 304(b)(2), so as to require a 

determination by the Secretary. Such an 

interpretation of the statute would put 

an unreasonable burden both on the 

States and DOE. For the States, a 

determination by the Secretary requires 

some State action, and what is required 

depends upon whether the Secretary 

issues an affirmative or a negative 

determination. If the Secretary were 

required to issue a determination after 

each addendum was published, the 

States would be constantly required to 

change their codes. This would affect 

the stability and certainty of State 

commercial building codes. DOE 

believes that Congress could not have 

intended this result. Therefore, DOE 

concludes that the statute only requires 

a determination by the Secretary when 

there is a comprehensive revision to the 

standard. 

With respect to the baseline for 

comparing the energy efficiency of 

revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 

with its predecessor, ASHRAE Standard 

90.1-1989, DOE's position is that the 

appropriate baseline is ASHRAE 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 46467 

Standard 90.1-1989 with addenda in 

effect at the time EP ACT was enacted. 

Since this is the first determination for 

commercial building codes since ECP A 

was amended by EP ACT on October 24, 

1992, it is reasonable to interpret section 

304(b)'s reference to ASHRAE Standard 

90.1-1989 to include the addenda in 

effect on the date of enactment. DOE 

interprets the statute to require a 

comparison of that version of ASHRAE 

90.1-1989 (and not any subsequent 

addenda) with ASHRAE Standard 90.1-

1999. If DOE were to adopt the AGA 

position and include all of the 

intervening addenda to ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1-1989 up to the adoption 

of ASHRAE 90.1-1999 in the baseline, 

it would render DOE's determination 

almost meaningless. That is, if all of the 

post-enactment addenda to ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1-1989 were included in 

the baseline, the real energy efficiency 

improvements (assuming there are any) 

of the revised standard would be 

reflected in the baseline. A comparison 

of a revised standard and the previous 

standard (under such an interpretation) 

would always show little, if any, energy 

efficiency gains. That would defeat the 

statute's purpose of requiring DOE to 

compare the energy efficiency of revised 

standards (i.e., comprehensive revisions 

of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989 or 

successor standards) with the prior or last standard. 

AGA and the Natural Resources 

Defense Council argue that DOE has a 

statutory responsibility to determine 

whether the revised standard would 

improve energy efficiency in 

commercial buildings and also whether 

all new energy efficiency measures are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (Letter dated 

April 12, 2000, from the American Gas 

Association and the Natural Resources 

Defense Council, signed by Charles H. 

Fritts and Katherine Kennedy, to Dan 

W. Reicher, Assistant Secretary Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy) They 

contend that DOE is required to conduct 

cost-effectiveness and economic 

justification analyses as part of the 

process in making its determination 

concerning ASHRAE Standard 90.1-

1999 pursuant to Section 304 of ECP A, 

as amended. These who commented 

believe that the statutory scheme, 

including Section 307, entitled 

"Support for Voluntary Building Energy 

Codes," supports its argument. 

The statutory language in Section 

304(b) states that the Secretary is 

required to make a determination as to 

whether any successor standard to 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989 will 

improve energy efficiency. The 

Secretary must publish a notice of this 

determination in the Federal Register. 

The language does not require that DOE 

perform an independent economic 

analysis as part of the determination 

process. As a matter of fact, Section 

304(b) omits any reference to language 

concerning economic justification. 

However, Congress was concerned 

that the technological feasibility and 

cost effectiveness of the Voluntary 

Building Energy Codes be considered. 

Section 307 clearly requires DOE to 

participate in the ASHRAE process and 

to assist in determining the cost 

effectiveness and technical feasibility of 

the ASHRAE standard. It also requires 

DOE to periodically review the 

economic basis of the voluntary 

building energy codes and participate in 

the industry process for review and 

modification, including seeking 

adoption of all technologically feasible 

and economically justified energy 

efficiency measures. Unlike Section 307 which specifically 

includes language concerning economic 

justification, Section 304 omits any 

reference to economic justification. It is 

generally presumed that Congress acts 

intentionally and purposefully where it 

includes particular language in one 

section of a statute but omits it in 

another section. See Bates v. United 

States, 522 U.S. 23, 29-30 (1997). 

Accordingly, the statutory scheme 

cannot be read to require an economic 

analysis as part of the determination 

process in Section 304(b). 

The fact that the Section 304 

determination process does not require 

the Secretary to perform an economic 

analysis does not diminish the 

importance that the ASHRAE standards 

be technologically feasible and 

economically justified. However, it 

appears that Congress assumed that 

these concerns would be worked out by 

stakeholders, with DOE participating in 

the ASHRAE process itself. The 

language of Section 307 clearly 

delineates DOE as one participant in the 

process, not the ultimate decision maker 

of the ASHRAE standard or successor 

revisions. 

Accordingly, for all of these reasons, 

DOE has determined that it is not 

required to perform an economic 

analysis as part of its determination 

process in Section 304 of ECP A, as 

amended. 

A number of the GARD Analytics 

comments were incorporated into our 

analysis. They include: (1) Extending 

the aggregation to cover buildings with 

different window area fractions instead 

of doing a sensitivity analysis; (2) use of 

the Alternate Component Packages 

tables in the 1989 edition's envelope 

section, to make it easier to identify the 

criteria which should be used in 

modeling the 1989 edition's envelope 

criteria; and (3) eliminating estimates of 

equipment operating hours in weighting 

equipment efficiency. In addition, we 

estimated efficiency improvement for 

cooling equipment and incorporated 

estimates of both single and three phase 

unitary cooling equipment less than 

65,000 Btu per hour, shipped to 

commercial buildings. 

GARD Analytics suggested we use 

specific prototype buildings as it did in 

its analysis, instead of our scaling 

approach. It also urged us to select 

specific building sizes for analysis. We 

believe that by using a scaling approach, 

we can better assess the impact of 

building envelope changes. Scaling 

permits us to better account for the 

actual ratio of building wall area to floor 

area in a population of buildings, rather 

than assume some fraction of the 

building population has a single size 

and geometry and that those 

characteristics hold for all buildings in 

that fraction of the building population. 

The size selection of the prototype used 

for scaling is near the median square 

footage for most building categories. 

Using a building size that is close to the 

median helps ensure that the 

characterization of secondary effects, 

such as the transitional performance of 

the building under thermostat setback 

conditions, is captured in a manner that 

is reasonable for the majority of the 

building population. 

GARD Analytics also commented on 

our use of a one-to-one aspect ratio (the 

ratio of length to width of a building) in 

the prototype. While we use an aspect 

ratio of one-to-one in the prototype 

simulation, to make the simulation 

orientation neutral, our scaling process 

does include typical aspect ratios for all 

building types to correctly determine 

the ratio of perimeter and core areas in 

the building population. GARD 

Analytics commented that the use of 

scaling does not allow the use of 

different lighting power densities for 

different building sizes, as are shown in 

the 1989 edition. In our approach the 

weighted average lighting power density 

over all Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey building sizes was 

used as the basis of our simulation of 

the 1989 edition's requirements. This 

correctly characterizes the average 

lighting improvement over all building 

sizes. 

GARD Analytics also had a number of 

comments on our proposed 

methodology. It suggested that selection 

of building types by baseline energy use 

was less correct than if it was done by 

square footage. We disagree. The 

purpose of selection by energy use, as 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

46468 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 

opposed to square footage, is to select 

the building types that will be most 

significant in terms of national energy 

use. We believe that as the number of 

building types used is increased, the set 

of buildings types selected by either 

method will converge to the same set. 

GARD Analytics also questioned 

elimination of the in-patient health care 

facilities category from our analysis and 

stated that available hospital models 

could be used. In-patient health care 

facilities are perceived to have high 

thermal loads and equipment loads 

within the health care category. Given 

the requirements of the 1999 edition, 

inclusion of this category would 

increase estimates of energy savings. 

However, we considered the relatively 

low ranking of in-patient health care 

buildings in terms of net energy use and 

the modest level of future in-patient 

health care new building growth. This 

reduced the importance of modeling 

this category. Finally, we did not have 

confidence in the representative nature 

of available in-patient healthcare 

models. We therefore chose not to 

simulate this building type separately in 

our analysis. We believe that not doing 

so resulted in a conservative estimate of 

the energy savings attributable to the 

1999 edition. 

GARD Analytics also commented that 

we should use the operating schedules 

and loads from the 1999 edition for the 

analysis. Our selected schedules are 

based on accurate measured data and 

we believe that they are at least as 

representative of typical buildings as 

those in the 1999 edition. 

GARD Analytics commented on the 

use of supplemental lighting power 

allowances. We concluded that the most 

appropriate lighting power allowances 

for our quantitative comparison were 

the whole-building lighting 

requirements. We commented on the 

space-by-space requirements and the 

impact of the supplemental lighting 

power allowances in our detailed 

textual analysis. 

GARD Analytics commented that we 

should use the maximum fan power 

allowances under both standards in our 

comparison. However, since the 

maximum fan power allowances are 

effectively the same in both standards, 

and are not believed representative of 

typical building design, we chose to use 

a more typical fan power usage and thus 

show a more realistic level of energy 

usage for buildings under both 

standards. Utilizing the maximum fan 

power would increase internal building 

loads, decrease heating loads and lower 

building balance temperature. The 

impact would be to increase absolute 

energy savings over the 1989 edition. 

DOE2.1 and BLAST (Building Loads 

and System Thermodynamics) are both 

building energy analysis computer 

programs. GARD Analytics commented 

that DOE should use DOE2.1, instead of 

BLAST, as the basis of the energy 

simulations. They state that DOE2.1 is 

more commonly used by building 

designers and that further development 

of BLAST is being phased out. DOE 

disagrees with the comment since 

BLAST forms the basis of the 

Department's new, improved simulation 

tool, Energy Plus, and since DOE is 

actually phasing out support for 

DOE2.1. 

GARD Analytics commented that we 

should use the most stringent 

compliance path on which to do our 

quantitative analysis. The Department 

considered this but selected the 

prescriptive compliance paths on which 

to base its quantitative analysis, since it 

is those paths for which specific 

requirements can be accurately 

identified for "prototype" buildings. 

Selecting representative requirements 

from the variable requirements in the 

other paths becomes highly speculative. 

We have addressed requirements from 

these other compliance paths in the 

detailed textual analysis. 

GARD Analytics commented on the 

selection of climates and regional 

weighting for our analysis. It felt that 

DOE's strategy to select the cities (which 

represent sets of climate data) is 

suboptimal and ignores the real effect of 

the standard having different criteria in 

different climates. We have reviewed 

our selection of climates and 

methodology and believe it to be 

entirely representative and appropriate 

for this analysis. GARD Analytics also 

commented that it was unnecessary to 

use sub-census regions in our 

aggregation approach. However, we feel 

that the use of sub-census regions is 

necessary to correctly represent the 

variation in energy costs in the western 

U.S. We believe that it introduces no 

additional error in the remainder of the 

analysis. 

GARD Analytics made a number of 

comments that we should do more 

detailed analyses. Examples of further 

analysis suggested by GARD Analytics 

included: state by state comparisons of 

the standards, the development of 

lighting power usage using the space-byspace method, inclusion of room air 

conditioners in the development of the 

cooling equipment efficiencies, the use 

of below ground building spaces in the 

comparison, and the use of marginal 

energy costs. We reviewed these 

comments, but concluded that the 

limited data available for describing 

building populations and weighting the 

results of more simulations would not 

result in a more accurate conclusion to 

our analysis. A number of these 

comments are addressed in our detailed 

textual analysis. 

3. Comments on Preliminary 

Quantitative and Textual Analyses 

As a matter of policy to further the 

determination process, we sought 

further comments on the application of 

the methodology and the validity of 

preliminary conclusions posted on our 

web site. A summary of comments and 

responses on common topical issues, 

regarding the application of the 

methodology and the preliminary 

conclusions, follows below. For detailed 

responses to the comments received, see 

Response to Comments on Preliminary 

Analyses Supporting DOE's 

Determination Regarding Standard 

90.1-1999, which is part of the 

administrative record for this 

Determination Notice. This document 

may be viewed at the DOE Freedom of 

Information Reading Room, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Forrestal 

Building, Room lE-190, 1000 

Independence Avenue S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-

3142, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. 

and 4:00 p.m., except Federal holidays, 

or a copy may be obtained from the 

Department from the contact person 

identified above. 

We received 12 comments, two from 

design practitioners (G. Johnson and 

Kay), four from States or code officials 

(Lloyd, Weitz, Cowen, Hogan), one 

representing States in a region 

(Coakley), one jointly from the two 

professional societies sponsoring the 

consensus process that developed the 

Standard (Wolf and Timmings), one 

from a public interest group (Goldstein), 

one from an energy code consultant (J. 

Johnson), and two representing the gas 

industry (Ranfone and Hemphill). Two 

who commented (Johnson and Kay) did 

not comment on the analysis. One of 

those who did not comment on the 

analysis joined four others who 

commented that the Department was 

late in making its determination and 

that the delay was hampering the 

Region's or State's updating of its energy 

codes (G. Johnson, Lloyd, Coakley, and 

Weitz). Of the nine commenting on the 

analysis, seven felt the analysis was 

well done or reasonable and agreed with 

the results. (Lloyd, Cowen, Coakley, 

Weitz, Wolf and Timmings, Goldstein 

and J. Johnson). One who commented 

suggested a change and wanted some 

further analysis done (Hogan), and 

another who commented had 35 

detailed comments (Hemphill). 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 46469 

Five complained about the amount of 

time it is taking the Department to make 

a determination Uohnson, Cowen, 

Coakley, Weitz, and Goldstein). They 

stated that the delay was adversely 

impacting States ability to update their 

energy codes and gain energy and 

greenhouse gas benefits. 

Five commented that they interpreted 

the analyses to conclude that there 

would be a net positive increase in 

commercial building energy efficiency 

and agreed with the conclusion for a 

positive determination. (Coakley, Lloyd, 

Weitz, Wolf and Timmings, Goldstein, 

and J. Johnson). Three of these further 

commented that the analyses were 

reasonable. One (Weitz) expressed the 

opinion that this is an achievable 

standard and indicated that 

Massachusetts has already adopted a 

new construction energy code based on 

the 1999 edition. However, one 

(Ranfone) commented that DOE should 

not complete its determination, until 

such time as an analysis is done to 

determine whether all new energy 

efficiency measures are technologically 

feasible and economically justified, a 

comment DOE previously addressed 

above. 

One (Hogan) commented, and we 

agree, that the building envelope criteria 

for the "lodging" category in our 

quantitative analysis should be taken 

from the "residential" column in the 

tables in Appendix B of the 1999 

edition, rather than from the 

"nonresidential" category, since the 

only change was in the opaque 

envelope. We have revised the analysis 

accordingly. 

Hogan also commented that the 

quantitative analysis should be 

expanded to include all energy used in 

buildings, including elevators, exterior 

lighting for entrances and facades, 

parking lighting, and parking 

ventilation, and be expanded to 

differentiate part-load operation 

between fan systems with and without 

variable frequency fans. Data on 

buildings and building component 

characteristics are insufficient to 

accurately include these in our analysis. 

However, each is addressed in the 

detailed textual analysis, except for 

elevators which are not addressed in 

either the 1989 or 1999 editions of 

Standard 90.1. 

One who commented (Hemphill) 

submitted 35 detailed comments on our 

analyses. We agreed in whole or in some 

part with eleven of these comments and 

have accordingly made changes or 

clarifications to our textual analysis. 

These eleven include comments on: 

exterior lighting power, interior lighting 

power-space-by-space, envelope air 

leakage, floors over unconditioned 

spaces, opaque wall thermal 

transmittance, opaque doors, load 

calculations and sizing, off-hour 

controls and setbacks, simultaneous 

heating and cooling controls, airconditioning equipment, and non-code 

language. In several cases, while we 

disagreed with comments, we further 

clarified our rationale, as noted below. 

Six comments received had to do with 

differing interpretations of the standard. 

These included comments having to do 

with lighting power exemptions, 

lighting integral to equipment, 

transformers, transportation systems, 

energy management systems, and the 

energy cost budget compliance path. On 

review, we disagreed with the 

interpretations presented in the 

comment and made no change. For 

example, in the case of energy 

management systems, they are 

recommended not required, as implied 

in the comment, in buildings over 

40,000 square feet in the 1989 edition. 

In the 1999 edition, energy management 

systems are not omitted but are 

addressed differently, under controls. In 

the case of the comment on the energy 

cost budget compliance path, we believe 

that both editions establish a baseline of 

requirements from the prescriptive 

compliance approach and require the 

energy cost of the design to be 

equivalent or less than the baseline. We 

therefore believe that in each edition the 

energy cost budget compliance path 

criteria are roughly equivalent to the 

prescriptive compliance path. 

The comments of Hemphill, which 

related to transformers, transportation 

systems, and energy management 

systems, suggested that we might have 

missed some differences between the 

two editions of the standard. On 

inspection we found that we had missed 

some differences. Therefore we have 

added analysis that addresses the 

subdivision of electric power feeders 

and provisions for check metering of 

loads. 

Eight comments received had to do 

with differing opinions on appropriate 

approaches to the textual analysis. 

These included comments on the 

subjective nature of the analysis of the 

envelope section, exit signs, the use of 

the prescriptive compliance path and 

not the performance paths in the 

analysis, our conclusions on the lighting 

power exemptions, window thermal 

transmittance and solar heat gain, 

temperature reset controls, and heating 

equipment. Four of these comments 

provide no suggestion of an alternative 

approach. We believe that our approach 

in the textual analysis provides useful 

information to states which will adopt 

the standard, even if the changes cannot 

be fully quantified. In the case of exit 

signs, and heating equipment, we did 

not agree that, where there were no 

criteria in the 1989 edition and there 

were criteria in the 1999 edition, we 

could not or should not project savings. 

No changes were made in response to 

these comments except for the comment 

on window thermal transmittance, 

where explanatory text was added to the 

textual analysis. 

Six other comments were received 

with which we disagreed but which led 

us to adding explanatory text to the 

textual analysis. This was done in the 

analysis relative to speculative building 

envelopes, envelope thermal 

transmittance in cold climates, slab on 

grade and below grade wall insulation, 

roof thermal transmittance, temperature 

controls, and pipe and duct insulation. 

One of these, the comment on pipe and 

duct insulation appeared to be a 

misinterpretation of what we wrote. In 

addition, more analysis was done on the 

subject of roof thermal transmittance. 

Five comments appear to have been a 

misinterpretation of our written 

analysis. These comments concerned 

parts of our whole building interior 

lighting power criteria, interior lighting 

controls and separate air distribution 

systems, radiant heating, and service 

water heating equipment. In the case of 

the comment on interior lighting 

controls, there are also opinions stated 

without support. Review of our 

explanations did not suggest any 

change. 

One (Hemphill) argued that there was 

no difference in scope between the two 

editions. However, four others (Coakley, 

Weitz, Wolf and Timmings, and 

Goldstein) all recognized the expansion 

of the scope of the 1999 edition to 

renovations of existing buildings. We 

agree with the latter majority opinion 

including those representing the 

organizations sponsoring the two 

editions. We note that through the mid 

1990s the American National Standards 

Institute recognized the ASHRAE 

Standard 100 series, that explicitly 

addressed existing buildings. Under 

American National Standards Institute 

policy, two standards (Standard 90.1-

1989 and ASHRAE Standard 100) could 

not address existing buildings. 

One (Hemphill) interpreted our 

analysis regarding increasing the scope 

of the 1999 edition to existing buildings 

to imply that the increased energy 

efficiency could approach 50 percent of 

the energy use reduction from new 

construction and expressed the opinion 

that there was absolutely no basis for 

this assertion, and that the implication 

was wholly inappropriate. Another 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

46470 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 

(Wolf and Timmings) commented on the 

subject that industry estimates indicate 

that at least 60 percent of heating and 

cooling equipment sales are for 

replacement markets, and only 40 

percent for new buildings, but did not 

provide a source for this estimate. We 

continue to believe that it is difficult to 

quantify the energy efficiency impact of 

the change in scope to include existing 

buildings. We will not attempt to 

estimate the impact of this change. 

Today's determination does not address 

or rely on this difference. 

C. Summary of the Comparative 

Analysis 

We carried out both a broad 

quantitative analysis and a detailed 

textual analysis of the differences 

between the requirements and the 

stringencies in the 1989 and the 1999 

editions. 

1. Quantitative Analysis 

The quantitative comparison of 

energy codes was done using wholebuilding energy simulations of buildings 

built to each standard. We simulated 

seven representative building types in 

11 representative U.S. climates. Only 

differences between new building 

requirements were considered in this 

quantitative analysis. The simulations 

were based on a 15 zone building 

prototype used in previous DOE 

building research. The simulated Energy 

Use Intensities (EUI) for each zone were 

scaled to correctly reflect variations in 

building size and shapes for each 

representative building type. Energy use 

intensities developed for each 

representative building type were 

weighted by total national square 

footage of each representative building 

type to provide an estimate of the 

difference between the national energy 

use in buildings constructed to both 

editions. A more detailed explanation is 

located in Appendix B to this notice. 

The quantitative analysis of the 

energy consumption of buildings built 

to the 1999 edition, compared with 

buildings built to the 1989 edition for 

new buildings, indicates national source 

energy savings of approximately 6.4 

percent of commercial building energy 

consumption. Site energy savings are 

estimated to be approximately 4.5 

percent. These figures represent a 

conservative estimate of energy savings 

for new buildings. 

2. Detailed Textual Analysis 

We also performed a detailed analysis 

of the differences between the textual 

requirements and stringencies of the 

two editions of Standard 90.1 

concerning the scope of the standard, 

the building envelope requirements, the 

building lighting and power 

requirements, and the building 

mechanical equipment requirements. 

The detailed textual analysis addresses 

a number of differences that, while very 

real, we could not accurately or reliably 

quantify because of lack of reliable 

information about the building stock 

and the incorporation of various 

components and equipment in various 

parts of the country. Therefore, the 

detailed textual analysis makes no 

attempt to quantify the differences 

between the 1989 and 1999 editions. 

The emphasis of our detailed 

requirement and stringency analysis 

was on differences between the 

envelope, lighting, and mechanical 

sections of both editions of Standard 

90.1. 

The lighting requirements comparison 

focused on the impact the different 

lighting requirements have on lighting 

energy use, as well as on building loads. 

The comparison looked separately at the 

whole building and space-by-space 

lighting requirements in both standards 

in a variety of commercial building 

types, as well as examined the effect of 

any "additional lighting power 

allowances." It also looked at controls. 

The mechanical requirements 

comparison looked at equipment 

efficiency requirements and system 

design requirements. The system design 

requirements affect the system 

efficiency, system thermal load, and 

also had some direct energy impacts. 

In comparing the envelope 

requirements, we made judgements of 

relative stringency and frequency of 

occurrence of components. 

Each standard has multiple ways to 

demonstrate compliance. We did not 

perform a detailed comparison of the 

relative stringency of the alternate paths 

internal to a single standard or between 

standards. The large number of variables 

among the alternative compliance paths 

made such a comparison prohibitive to 

undertake. Further, we knew of no data 

on which to base the selection of 

representative requirements for such an 

analysis. Assignment of requirements 

would have been arbitrary. Rather we 

focused on the prescriptive compliance 

paths in each section, which we believe 

represent the most common approach to 

using the standard in question for most 

buildings. 

D. Determination Statement 

The Department's review and 

evaluation found that there are 

significant differences between the 1989 

edition and the 1999 edition. Our 

overall conclusion is that the 1999 

edition will improve the energy 

efficiency of commercial buildings, even 

though in certain limited instances 

stringencies for some requirements are 

reduced. However, we found a number 

of changes in textual requirements and 

stringencies that will decrease energy 

efficiency. Overall, we concluded the 

changes in textual requirements and 

stringencies are "positive," in the sense 

that they will improve energy efficiency 

in commercial construction. Our 

quantitative analysis shows, nationally, 

new building efficiency should improve 

by about six percent, looking at source 

energy, and by about four percent, when 

considering site energy. DOE has 

therefore concluded that the 1999 

edition should receive an affirmative 

determination under Section 304(b) of 

the Energy Conservation and Production 

Act for "buildings" within the meaning 

of Section 303(2). 

II. Results of Quantitative Analysis 

Tables 1 and 2 show the aggregated 

energy use and associated energy 

savings by building type for the seven 

categories analyzed and on an 

aggregated national basis for the 1989 

and 1999 editions, respectively. See 

Appendix B for an explanation of the 

methodology we used. For each edition 

the building floor area weight is used to 

calculate the building energy or cost use 

intensity. The electric and gas building 

energy use intensity is presented for 

each type analyzed with electric 

predominating in all types. Site energy 

use intensities ranges from more than 

137 thousand Btu per square foot 

annually for the Food building type to 

more than 18 thousand Btu per square 

foot annually for the Warehouse 

building type. Source energy use 

intensities have similar ranges as site 

energy ranges but vary in quantitative 

order from site energy intensities. 

(Lodging and Office rank 4th and 5th 

respectively for site energy, while for 

source energy their ranking is reversed, 

5th and 4th respectively.). Building 

energy cost intensities are also 

presented. 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 

TABLE 1.-ESTIMATED ENERGY USE INTENSITY BY BUILDING TYPE-1989 EDITION 

Building type 

Assembly ......................................................................... . 

Education ........................................................................ . 

Food ................................................................................ . 

Lodging ........................................................................... . 

Office ............................................................................... . 

Retail ........................... : ................................................... . 

Warehouse ...................................................................... . 

National ........................................................................... . 

Building 

type floor area weight 

0.068 

0.218 

0.027 

0.079 

0.190 

0.246 

0.173 

Electric 

61.55 

35.65 

101.60 

42.80 

49.85 

57.14 

10.43 

43.36 

Whole building energy use intensity 

(kBtu/sf-yr or $/sf-yr) 

Gas Site EUI Source EUI 

32.18 93.73 231.78 

18.86 54.50 134.47 

35.52 137.12 363.04 

17.61 60.41 155.88 

5.61 55.45 165.00 

3.95 61.09 186.39 

8.19 18.62 42.32 

12.09 55.44 151.52 

TABLE 2.-ESTIMATED ENERGY USE INTENSITY BY BUILDING TYPE-1999 EDITION 

Building type 

Assembly ......................................................................... . 

Education ........................................................................ . 

Food ................................................................................ . 

Lodging ........................................................................... . 

Office ............................................................................... . 

Retail ............................................................................... . 

Warehouse ...................................................................... . 

National ........................................................................... . 

Building 

type floor area weight 

0.068 

0.218 

0.027 

0.079 

0.190 

0.246 

0.173 

Electric 

55.71 

31.59 

102.78 

41.04 

44.56 

48.14 

17.91 

40.04 

Whole building energy use intensity 

(kBtu/sf-yr or $/sf-yr) 

Gas Site EUI Source EUI 

33.88 89.59 215.04 

20.05 51.64 122.88 

34.91 137.69 366.12 

15.94 56.98 148.41 

6.32 50.88 148.95 

5.17 53.31 159.08 

9.11 27.02 67.15 

12.91 52.95 141.88 

46471 

$UI 

1.48 

0.87 

2.32 

1.00 

1.09 

1.23 

0.27 

0.99 

$UI 

1.37 

0.79 

2.35 

0.95 

0.98 

1.05 

0.43 

0.92 

Table 3 presents the estimated percent 

energy savings between the 1989 and 

1999 editions. Overall, considering 

those differences that can be reasonably 

quantified, the 1999 edition will 

increase the energy efficiency of 

commercial buildings. However, this is 

not true for new buildings of all 

building types. In the case of the Food 

Service and the Warehouse building 

categories, the 1999 edition will allow 

increased energy usage. This is 

primarily due to an increased lighting 

power allowance for these building 

categories under the 1999 edition. 

Numbers in Table 3 represent percent 

energy savings. Thus, negative numbers 

represent increased energy use. 

TABLE 3.-ESTIMATED PERCENT ENERGY SAVINGS WITH 1999 EDITION-BY BUILDING TYPE 

Building type 

Assembly ......................................................................... . 

Education ........................................................................ . 

Food ................................................................................ . 

Lodging ........................................................................... . 

Office ............................................................................... . 

Retail ............................................................................... . 

Warehouse ...................................................................... . 

National ........................................................................... . 

Building 

type floor 

area weight 

0.068 

0.218 

0.027 

0.079 

0.190 

0.246 

0.173 

1.000 

Percent reduction in whole building energy use intensity 

Electric Gas Site EUI Source EUI 

9.5 5.3 4.4 7.2 

11.4 -6.3 5.2 8.6 

-1.2 1.7 -0.4 -0.8 

4.1 9.5 5.7 4.8 

10.6 12.7 8.2 9.7 

15.7 -30.7 12.7 14.7 

71.6 -11.3 -45.1 -58.7 

7.6 -6.8 4.5 6.4 

$UI 

7.5 

9.0 

-0.9 

4.7 

9.8 

14.9 

-59.7 

6.6 

A comparison of energy savings by 

building type for each of the different 

standard scenarios modeled is shown in 

Table 4, to give an idea of where most 

of the savings or increases derive. For 

example, we estimate a slight 

percentage increase in energy use 

intensity indicated in the "1989 edition 

with 1999 edition envelope 

requirements" row, indicated by the 

negative savings. Similarly there is an 

estimated percentage increase in gas 

energy use intensity indicated in the 

"Gas EUI" column, also indicated by 

negative savings. Conversely, other rows 

indicate estimated percentage reduction 

in energy use intensity for lighting and 

mechanical requirements. 

TABLE 4.-PERCENT ENERGY SAVINGS FROM 1989 EDITION 

[National figures, all building types] 

Standard scenario Electric EUI Gas EUI Site EUI 

1989 edition ............................................................................................. 0 0 0 

1989 edition with 1999 edition envelope requirements ........................... 0.1 -4.3 -0.9 

1989 edition with 1999 edition lighting requirements .............................. 5.9 -8.3 2.8 

1989 edition with 1999 edition lighting and envelope requirements ....... 6.0 10.1 2.5 

Source EUI I $UI 

ol 0 

-0.31 -0.3 

4.6 4.9 

4.6 4.8 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

46472 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 

TABLE 4.-PERCENT ENERGY SAVINGS FROM 1989 EDITION-Continued 

[National figures, all building types] 

Standard scenario Electric EUI Gas EUI Site EUI Source EUI $UI 

1989 edition with 1999 edition mechanical requirements ······················· 2.2 

1999 edition compliant buildings ............................................................. 7.6 

III. Discussion of Detailed Textual 

Analysis 

The 1999 edition is written in code 

language and as a result excludes some 

of the guidance provided in the 1989 

edition. Although the guidance in the 

1989 edition is not enforceable, it 

provided designers with suggestions for 

implementing energy efficient solutions. 

However, the guidance in the 1989 

edition made it difficult for designers 

and code officials to quickly identify the 

relevant criteria. 

A. Lighting and Power 

1. Interior Lighting Power Exemptions 

The 1989 edition entirely exempts a 

number of lighting categories such as 

display or accent lighting for galleries, 

and lighting in spaces designed for the 

visually impaired. In doing so, it also 

exempts controls for those lights. While 

the 1999 edition exempts the lighting 

power requirements, it retains 

requirements for controls in the 

exempted areas. Lighting for outdoor 

manufacturing, commercial 

greenhouses, and process facilities; and 

special lighting for research are exempt 

in the 1989 edition but not in the 1999 

edition. These differences can be 

expected to result in some reduction in 

lighting power use as a result of the 

additional coverage in the 1999 edition. 

Conversely, there are a number of 

narrowly targeted exemptions in the 

1999 edition that are not in the 1989 

edition. These include: lighting integral 

to equipment installed by its 

manufacturer; lighting integral to open 

and glass enclosed refrigerator and 

freezer cases; lighting integral to food 

warming and preparation equipment; 

lighting in interior spaces that have 

been designated as a registered interior 

historic landmark; exit signs; lighting 

that is for sale or lighting educational 

demonstration systems; and casino 

gaming areas. The first three of these are 

not generally controlled by the 1989 

edition because they are rarely known at 

the time the lighting plans are approved. 

While portions of gaming areas are often 

considered entertainment areas and 

exempt, the broader 1999 edition 

exemption can be expected to increase 

energy use in casinos. Lighting for 

landmark interiors might also increase 

in some cases. The net effect of these 

differences in exempted spaces is 

expected to be a small increase in 

efficiency in the 1999 edition. 

2. Exterior Lighting Power 

The 1989 edition prescribes 

maximum installed lighting power 

(Watts/square foot or Watts/ linear foot) 

for exterior building and grounds areas 

that, when added together, become the 

allowed exterior wattage. The 1999 

edition sets similar criteria for exits, 

entrances and surface areas or facades, 

but also adds an efficacy requirement of 

60 lumens per Watt in luminaries of 

more than 100 Watts. There is a three 

Watts per lineal foot increase in 

allowable wattage for entrances without 

canopies in the 1999 edition. However, 

there is a decrease in allowable wattage 

for all exits (five Watts per lineal foot), 

and for high traffic canopied entrances 

(seven Watts per square foot), and for 

light traffic canopied entrances (one 

Watt per square foot). The net impact is 

unknown as data on the number of 

building entrances and exits and their 

characteristics are not known. 

For loading areas, loading doors, 

storage and non-manufacturing work 

areas, and driveways, walkways, and 

parking lots, the 1999 edition deviates 

from the 1989 edition by eliminating 

any Watts/square foot or Watts/linear 

foot maximums and instead sets an 

efficacy requirement of 60 lumens per 

Watt (more than 100 Watts per 

luminaire). This requirement in the 

1999 edition eliminates the use of low 

efficiency technologies, such as 

incandescent lamps, and allows the 

economics of fixture and energy cost to 

restrict the exterior lighting use to the 

minimum needed. We are aware of no 

data on which to make a judgement as 

to net decrease or increase in energy use from this change. 

3. Lighting Controls-Interior 

The 1989 edition requires control 

points for each task or group of tasks 

within a 450 square foot area. It 

"counts" control "points" (one for 

manual, two for occupancy sensors, etc.) 

to show compliance with this 

requirement, giving credit to automatic 

controls versus manual ones. It further 

sets a minimum of one control for each 

1,500 Watts of lighting. In place of this 

task control requirement, the 1999 

3.0 2.4 2.3 2.2 

6.8 4.5 6.4 6.6 

edition requires all buildings more than 

5,000 square feet in size to have 

automatic lighting shutoff in all spaces 

using time of day, occupancy sensor or 

similar methods. Buildings more than 

5,000 square feet make up 

approximately half the number of 

commercial buildings built and more 

than 89 percent of the floor area 

constructed. This should save energy in 

these buildings during unoccupied 

hours. Where occupant sensors are used 

to comply with the requirement, the 

savings should be greatest, since this 

will shut off lights in unoccupied 

individual spaces, even during regular 

business hours. 

The 1999 edition adds control 

requirements for six specific lighting 

functions: all task lighting, hotel/motel 

guest rooms, display/accent lighting, 

case lighting, nonvisual (plant growth, 

food warming), and demonstration (for 

sale or for lighting demonstration). 

Furthermore, the 1999 edition requires 

that spaces up to 10,000 square feet in 

size have at least one control per 2,500 

square feet and that larger spaces have 

one control per 10,000 square feet. In 

buildings with large open areas with 

multiple task areas lit by general 

lighting, the 1989 edition would require 

more (total manual or automatic) 

switching than the 1999 edition. The 

1999 edition instead reduces lighting 

use in unoccupied spaces with 

automatic controls that do not require 

human intervention. The 1999 

automatic control requirements are 

more likely to reduce lighting energy 

use in these spaces, than the manual 

controls permitted in the 1989 edition. 

The 1989 edition provides lighting 

control credits for use in calculating 

interior lighting power densities to 

encourage the use of automatic controls. 

For each area or group of lights that are 

controlled by an occupancy sensor, 

lumen maintenance sensor, daylight 

sensor, or combination of sensors, the 

design connected lighting power value, 

used in showing compliance, can be 

reduced from 10 percent to 40 percent, 

depending on the controls used. This 

allows more lighting power to be used 

in the space in exchange for the use of 

an automatic lighting control. The 1999 

edition requires the use of automatic 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 46473 

controls without allowing an increase in 

connected power. 

The 1989 edition requires 

permanently wired lighting fixtures and 

switched receptacles in hotel suites of 

rooms to be controlled at the entrance 

to each room. The 1999 edition further 

requires this control to be at the 

entrance of the entire suite area. The 

1999 edition should save energy by 

making it easier to turn off all the lights 

on the way out. 

4. Ballast Efficacy Factor 

The 1989 edition includes a minimum 

ballast efficacy factor. The 1999 edition 

does not. However, new ballast 

manufacturing standards, required 

under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, serve the same 

purpose and no longer make it 

necessary to include such criteria in the 

1999 edition. There will be no change 

in energy use as a result of this 

difference. 

5. Exit Signs 

The 1999 edition includes an 

additional section specifying a 

minimum efficiency (35 lumens per 

Watt) for all exit signs operating at 

greater than 20 Watts that is intended to 

eliminate the use of standard 

incandescent lamps in exit signs. This 

will essentially eliminate the use of 

incandescent exit signs thereby 

reducing energy consumption. 

6. Interior Lighting Power-Whole 

Building 

The 1999 edition provides greater 

clarity in specifying the calculation of 

luminaire or lighting system wattage 

that covers self ballasted, remote 

ballasted, track lighting systems and 

other miscellaneous lighting. This could 

eliminate some underestimation of 

installed lighting power. For example, it 

is common for a fluorescent lighting 

fixture to be described by builders (with 

respect to power consumption) as the 

simple sum of the lamp wattages while 

ignoring ballast energy use. The 1989 edition presents a set of 

whole building lighting power density 

requirements for 11 building types in 

six different building size ranges (0-

2,000; 2,001-10,000; 10,001-25,000; 

25,001-50,000; 50,001-250,000; and 

greater than 250,001 square feet). The 

1999 edition presents a single set of 

whole building lighting power density 

requirements for 31 building types 

without building size variation. For four 

of the building types, where there is a 

reasonable match between 1989 and 

1999 editions, the 1999 allowance is 

higher by 0.06 to 0.64 Watts per square 

foot. Seven other matched building 

types show the 1989 edition having 

lighting power allowances 0.20 to 0.80 

Watts per square foot higher than in the 

1999 edition. Considering all eleven 

matched building types, there is an 

average reduction of0.11 Watts per 

square foot with the 1999 edition. 

Within the two building types 

representing the largest percentage of 

building floor area in the commercial 

sector (office and retail) the reductions 

with the 1999 edition are 0.40 Watts per 

square foot for office and 0.60 Watts per 

square foot for retail buildings. Because 

there is an average reduction of lighting 

power densities from the 1989 edition to 

the 1999 edition in all matching 

building types, and also a reduction in 

the lighting power densities allowed in 

the two largest building types (office 

and retail), the overall effect of the 

whole building lighting power density 

requirements in the 1999 edition will be 

to provide increased energy efficiency 

in most building types. However, it 

should be noted that there is an increase 

in the lighting power allowance for 

warehouse and storage type buildings 

which are significant in terms of total 

commercial building area. We expect a 

net reduction in energy use, with the 

whole building requirements. (See also 

the quantitative analysis of lighting 

requirements, Table 4.) 

7. Interior Lighting Power-Space-BySpace 

Both the 1989 and 1999 editions 

present individual building space 

lighting power allowance values for use 

in applying a space-by-space 

compliance method where individual 

space lighting power is aggregated to 

arrive at a building total power 

allowance. The 1989 edition's tabulated 

space-by-space allowances are used in 

the compliance process only after they 

have been adjusted by an Area Factor 

(AF) ranging from 1.0 to 1.8. This factor 

is used to increase the allowed lighting 

power when the shape of the room (the 

size and height) necessitates the use of 

additional lighting power to achieve 

certain levels of illuminance. The area 

factor that can be used to calculate some 

space type allowances is limited. For 

example, the allowance for sports 

playing areas, corridors, open offices, 

and mechanical rooms cannot be 

modified by an area factor, while the 

allowance for enclosed offices can be 

modified by an area factor of up to 1.55. 

Spaces that are used for multiple 

functions, such as auditoriums, 

conference, banquet, and meeting 

rooms, are allowed an additional 

lighting power adjustment factor of 1.5. 

By contrast, this adjustment for room 

dimensions is already built into the 

1999 edition's space lighting power 

values, so adjustments for space 

dimensions are not permitted. The 1999 

edition does allow some additional 

lighting power allowances to 

accommodate specific lighting needs. 

These include additional power for 

decorative lighting (1.0 Watt per square 

foot), additional power for VDT terminal 

lighting (0.35 Watts per square foot), 

and additional power for retail display 

lighting. In the latter case, either 1.6 

Watts per square foot of specific display 

area is allowed for general merchandise 

highlighting, or 3.9 Watts per square 

foot of specific display area is allowed 

for valuable merchandise highlighting. 

This additional power is only allowed if 

the specified luminaries are installed 

and can only be used for the specific 

purpose noted. 

It is difficult to assess the actual 

impact from the use of the 1999 

edition's space-by-space method versus 

the 1989 edition's. This is because the 

allowed power density for a building 

will depend greatly on the space 

makeup of the building, the individual 

room dimensions (affecting the area 

factor adjustment) and any additional 

allowances that may apply. However, 

the average of all matching 1989 and 

1999 edition power density space values 

shows a 0.36 Watts per square foot 

decrease in the 1999 edition's values 

from those in the 1989 edition. Identical 

room geometry configurations (based on 

those used in the development of the 

1999 edition's lighting power densities) 

were taken into account in reaching this 

conclusion. Furthermore, it is important 

to consider the items in both editions 

that can modify these lighting 

allowances. For example, the 1989 

edition would allow the use of a 1.5 

additional lighting power adjustment 

factor for multipurpose spaces, such as 

"Auditorium," "Conference/Meeting 

Room," and "Banquet/Multi-Purpose 

Space." Whereas the 1999 edition 

would be even more energy efficient 

because there is no such area factor 

adjustment. 

Determining the impact of the 

additional power allowances in the 

1999 edition is difficult, since any 

comparison with values in the 1989 

edition uses either example buildings or 

lighting models. Using either example 

buildings or lighting models requires 

many assumptions regarding what is 

"typical " in each type of space and 

how each space is used. For example, in 

the 1989 edition, the base lighting 

power density for a mass merchandise 

store in a warehouse type setting is 3.3 

Watts per square foot. With the 

application of an appropriate area factor 

(1.05), the 1989 edition's adjusted 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

46474 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 

power allowance is 3.46 Watts per 

square foot. The 1999 edition starts with 

a base lighting power density for all 

retail establishments of 2.1 Watts per 

square foot. The 1999 edition allows 

additional lighting power for certain 

lighting activities including retail sales 

lighting. These come in the form of an 

additional 1.6 Watts per square foot of 

lighted area for merchandise 

highlighting and 3.9 Watts per square 

foot of specific fine merchandise 

display. The application of these 

allowances will depend on the layout of 

the retail space and how and at what 

height lighting is employed. This is 

similar to how the area factor in the 

1989 edition depends on the geometry 

of the individual space. 

Office space lighting has a similar 

difference between the two editions. 

The 1999 edition offers an additional 

power allowance for visual display 

terminal lighting. Spaces with 

decorative lighting similarly are allowed 

extra power only for the decorative 

lighting used. No such allowances are 

included in the 1989 edition's values. 

To make some assessment of the 

possible impact of these additional 

allowances, we developed 

characteristics of a space under the 1999 

edition whose total space lighting power 

allowance would match that of the 1989 

edition. For this comparison, we 

determined what additional lighting 

power allowances would need to be 

applied to the 1999 edition's base value 

to match the 1989 edition's value. This 

comparison allows for a determination 

of any stringency associated with the 

use of the low base numbers in the 1999 

standard. In some of these cases a range 

of power values represents the possible 

variation in calculated values using the 

1989 standard. The 1999 standard 

allows for only one base value. Table 5 

presents comparisons for a variety of 

representative cases. 

TABLE 5.-ADDITIONAL LIGHTING POWER ALLOWANCE IN THE 1999 EDITION NEEDED TO MATCH THE 1989 EDITION 

LIGHTING POWER ALLOWANCE 

Space type [Additional lighting 

type] 

1989 edition adjusted total 

power 

1999 edition 

base power 

Possible scenarios of use of additional power in 1999 to equal 1989 

edition value 

Hotel Lobby [Decorative] ............... . 2.51 

2.38 

.................. 1.7 Permits 20 percent of the entire space to have decorative lighting. 

Office-enclosed [Visual Display Cannot reach the1989 edition's value (Max 1999 value= 1.85). 

Terminal]. 

Office-open [Visual Display Terminal]. 

2.51 

1.5 

1.3 .................. .. Cannot reach the 1989 edition's value (Max 1999 value= 1.65). 

Jewelry Retail [Highlight Merchandise]. 

5.88 to 7.40 ...... 2.1 In most cases, one cannot reach the 1989 edition's value (Max 1999 

value = 6.00). Need to have 97 percent of the entire space covered with spotlighted fine merchandise displays, to reach the 1989 

edition's lower value. 

Fine Merchandise Retail [Highlight 3.36 to 4.23 ...... 2.1 .................. .. Need to have between 32 and 55 percent of space dedicated to 

spotlighted fine merchandise displays-or, more than 78 percent 

of the space dedicated to spotlighted general displays, to reach 

the 1989 edition's value. 

Merchandise]. 

Mass Merchandise (big box) Retail 3.30 .................. 2.1 75 percent of space dedicated to spotlighted general displays-OR30 percent of space dedicated to spotlighted fine merchandise displays, to reach the 1989 edition's values. 

[Highlight Merchandise]. 

Department Store Retail [Highlight 3.1 O to 4.10 ...... 2.1 

Merchandise]. 

Need to have between 26 and 51 percent of space dedicated to 

spotlighted fine merchandise displays, or over 62 percent of the 

space dedicated to spotlighted general displays, to reach the 1989 

edition's values. 

Food and Misc. Retail [Highlight 2.80 .................. 2.1 ................... . Need to have 43 percent of space dedicated to spotlighted general 

Merchandise]. displays, to reach the 1989 edition's values. 

Service Retail [Highlight Merchan- 2.84 to 3.57 ...... 1.05 to 1.32 ...... 

dise]. 

Need to have between 46 and 92 percent of the entire space dedicated to spotlighted general displays, to reach the 1989 edition's 

values. 

Mall Concourse [Highlight Mer- 1.40 to 1.85 ...... 1.8 .................. .. The 1999 value is within or close to possible 1989 values. 

chandise]. 

In the case of the hotel lobby it would 

be possible to use the decorative 

lighting power credit in 20 percent of 

the entire space without exceeding the 

requirements of the 1989 edition, which 

is quite reasonable. However, in the case 

of the mall concourse example, no 

additional lighting power allowance is 

required for the 1999 edition lighting 

power allowance to equal or exceed the 

1989 edition value. By contrast, the 

enclosed and open office examples 

show that the 1989 edition lighting 

value cannot be achieved, even with the 

maximum allowance possible applied. 

In the case of Jewelry stores, in most 

cases one cannot reach the 1989 value. 

Where one can reach the 1989 value, it 

would require an unreasonable 97 

percent of the entire sales area to be 

covered with fine merchandise displays, 

in order to meet the 1989 value. In the 

Mass Merchandising, Food and 

Miscellaneous Retail and Service Retail 

categories, the additional areas of 

highlighted merchandise required to 

match the 1989 values are excessive and 

generally unrealistic. In the remaining 

two examples (fine Merchandise and 

Department Store) the 1989 edition 

lighting values can be achieved with 

additional lighting power scenarios that 

are generally reasonable for some of the 

spaces, but only where low room cavity 

ratio values occur. Overall, these results 

indicate that the 1999 edition lighting 

values are more stringent, with the 

additional lighting power allowances 

more than compensated for by the 

reduction in base lighting power in the 

1999 edition. 

8. End Use Metering 

The 1989 edition had requirements 

for the subdivision of electrical power 

feeders by use category, to facilitate enduse metering in buildings with more 

than 250 kVA connected load. In 

addition it had provisions to check 

meter loads of individual tenants with 

more than 100 kVA of connected load. 

The removal of requirements for 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 46475 

subdividing metering loads, in the 1999 

edition, will make check metering and 

commissioning of these systems more 

difficult. In doing so, it will likely result 

in some increase in energy 

consumption. 

9. Transformers 

The 1989 edition suggested that 

building transformers be selected to 

optimize the combination of no-load, 

part-load, and full-load losses, and had 

a requirement that an annual operating 

cost calculation be done and added to 

the electrical design documentation for 

buildings with total building 

transformers more than 300 kV A. The 

requirement has been removed from the 

1999 edition. However, the 1989 edition 

did not provide for a comparison over 

multiple possible system designs, that 

might have produced more efficient 

options. Thus, the removal of the 

requirement is unlikely to have a 

significant impact on building 

efficiency. 

10. Motors 

The 1989 edition had motor efficiency 

requirements for motors operating more 

than 500 hours per year. However, the 

efficiency levels included are less 

efficient than Federal manufacturing 

standards enacted in 1992 and thus 

have no impact on building efficiency. 

B. Building Envelope 

1. Air Leakage 

The 1989 edition provides a series of 

air-leakage standards or requirements 

that individual components must meet. 

The 1999 edition replaces all these 

standards with a requirement to use the 

National Fenestration Rating Council's, 

Procedure for Determining Fenestration 

Product Air Leakage, NFRC 400, as the 

test procedure. Table 6 compares the air 

leakage requirements for envelope 

openings in the two editions. The 

number in the right-hand column 

indicates that the 1999 edition permits 

more air leakage and is therefore less 

stringent. 

TABLE 6.- COMPARISON OF AIR LEAKAGE REQUIREMENTS IN THE 1989 AND 1999 EDITIONS. 

Product 1989 edition 1999 edition 1989-1999 difference 

Windows: 

Aluminum Framed, Operable ...................................................................... 0.37 cfm/lon ft ......... 0.4 cfmfft2 .............. . +0.03 

Aluminum Framed, Jalousie ....... ................................................................ 1.5 cfm/f2 ................ 0.4 cfm/ft 2 .............. . 1.10 

+0.25 

+0.34 

+0.03 

+0.15 

+0.25 

+0.35 

Aluminum Framed, Fixed ............................................................................ 0.15 cfmlft2 ............. 0.4 cfm/ft2 .............. . 

Vinyl Framed ............................................................................................... 0.06 cfm/ft2 ............. 0.4 cfmlft2 .............. . 

Wood Framed, Residential ......................................................................... 0.37 cfm/ft2 ............. 0.4 cfm/ft2 .............. . 

Wood Framed, Light Commercial ............................................................... 0.25 cfmlft2 ............. 0.4 cfm/ft2 .............. . 

Wood Framed, Heavy Commercial ............................................................. 0.15 cfm/ft2 ............. 0.4 cfmlft2 ............. .. 

Skylights ............................................................................................................. 0.05 cfm/ft2 ............. 0.4 cfmlft2 .............. . 

Doors: 

Aluminum Sliding ........................................................................................ 0.37 cfmfft2 ............. 0.4 cfm/ft2 .............. . +0.03 

+0.03 

+0.06 

+0.15 

+0.30 

Vinyl Sliding ................................................................................................. 0.37 cfmfft2 ............. 0.4 cfm/ft2 .............. . 

Wooden, Residential ................................................................................... 0.34 cfm/ft2 ............. 0.4 cfm/ft2 .............. . 

Wooden, Light Commercial ......................................................................... 0.25 cfmfft2 ............. 0.4 cfm/ft2 .............. . 

Wooden, Heavy Commercial ...................................................................... 0.10 cfm/ft2 ............. 0.4 cfm/ft2 .............. . 

Commercial Entrance, glazed ..................................................................... 1.25 cfmlft2 ............. 1.0 cfm/ft2 .............. . 0.25 

Commercial Entrance, opaque ................................................................... 1.25 cfm/f2 .............. 0.4 cfm/ft 2 .............. . -0.85 

Residential Swinging ................................................................................... 0.50 cfmlft2 ............. 0.4 cfm/ft2 .............. . -0.10 

Aluminum Wall Sections .................................................................................... 0.06 cfmfft2 ............. Not covered ............ . + 

The impact of these changes on energy 

efficiency is hard to evaluate. Air 

leakage requirements for windows are 

less stringent for six window types and 

more stringent in one window type in 

the 1999 edition. Skylight requirements 

are more stringent in the 1999 edition 

than in the 1989 edition. Doors are more 

stringent for three types and less 

stringent for five other types, in the 

1999 edition. Jalousie windows are not 

a predominate window type in 

commercial construction, but there has 

been a significant increase in allowed 

leakage rate for other window types 

under the 1999 edition. Therefore, the 

overall impact in comparing the 

requirements for window air leakage is 

a reduction in stringency. 

For doors, there are significant 

increased leakage rates for wooden 

doors and slight increased leakage for 

sliding doors. However for the 

categories of "Commercial entrance 

doors" and for "All other commercial 

doors," there are expected to be 

significant reductions in allowed 

leakage. Because of the predominance of 

commercial steel doors in the latter 

category, we believe door air leakage 

requirements are more stringent in the 

1999 edition. 

The 1999 edition does include 

additional requirements for loading 

dock weather seals in colder climates 

(greater than 3,600 heating degree days, 

base 65 degrees Fahrenheit) and also a 

requirement for vestibules in 

commercial building entrance doors. 

Vestibules are not required in climates 

of less than 1,800 heating degree days, 

base 65 degrees Fahrenheit; in buildings 

of less than four stories; where doors 

open directly from a dwelling unit; 

where doors open directly from a space 

less than 3,000 square feet in area; in 

buildings entrances with revolving 

doors; and where doors are used 

primarily to facilitate vehicular 

movement or material handling and 

adjacent personnel doors. These 

requirements are not present in the1989 

edition. The combination of the more 

stringent requirements for 

"commercial" doors and loading dock 

and vestibule requirements should 

improve energy efficiency in buildings 

where they are required. 

We would expect there to be fewer 

doors than windows in most 

commercial buildings. We therefore 

expect an overall decrease in stringency 

due to air leakage under the 1999 

edition. 

2. Insulation Installation 

The 1999 edition requires that 

insulation be installed in substantial 

contact with the inside surface of 

cavities. It also requires that lighting 

fixtures, heating, ventilating, and airconditioning, and other equipment not 

be recessed in such a manner as to affect 

the insulation performance. Finally, the 

1999 edition bans installation of 

insulation on suspended ceilings with 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

46476 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 

removable ceiling panels. The 1989 

edition does not address this subject at 

all. These 1999 edition insulation 

installation requirements are expected 

to save energy in commercial buildings. 

3. Allowance for Speculative Buildings 

Buildings constructed on speculation 

that they will be leased or occupied by 

as yet unknown occupants are referred 

to as "speculative" buildings in the 

1999 edition. Speculative buildings are 

often designed and the envelope 

constructed prior to the final occupancy 

being known. Both the 1989 and 1999 

editions cover this issue, albeit in 

somewhat different fashion. The 1989 

edition sets the most stringent envelope 

requirements likely to be encountered to 

be installed in the building from the 

start, while the 1999 edition allows a 

less stringent envelope to be installed to 

accommodate a less demanding 

occupancy (such as a semi-heated 

warehouse), but then requires an 

upgrade to the envelope efficiency if the 

building use changes to a more 

demanding occupancy (such as office 

space). We believe that under the 1999 

edition the transition from a semiheated space (such as the conversion of 

a warehouse heated for freeze protection 

only to a conditioned space for other 

use such as office) would entail the 

addition of heating capacity, and likely 

cooling capacity in most climates. 

Similarly, changes in lighting would 

likely occur. Building inspections 

would normally be required which 

would trigger a review of energy code 

requirements. While these approaches 

differ, we do not believe the difference 

will impact the overall energy use of 

commercial buildings. 

4. Envelope Thermal Transmittance in 

Cold Climates 

The 1989 edition has an explicit set 

of requirements for the building 

envelope (wall, roof, and fenestration) 

for cold climates with more than 15,000 

heating degree days, base 65 degrees 

Fahrenheit. The 1999 edition addresses 

these cold climates in three bins, or 

groupings of ranges of degree days, that 

are slightly different from the 1989 

edition. These three bins include 

criteria for buildings in climates with 

heating degree day, base 65 degrees 

Fahrenheit between 12,601 and 16,200 

(bin 24), between 16,201 and 19,800 

(bin 25) and more than 19,801 (bin 26). 

The envelope criteria vary with 

differences in construction (see Table 7). 

The U-factor requirements in the 1999 

edition are generally less stringent. 

However, the only U.S. climate in the 

1989 or 1999 edition's weather data that 

would fall under the "cold climate" 

requirements would be Barrow Alaska. 

Thus we expect any impact to be 

negligible because of the small amount 

of construction in Barrow and similar 

smaller cold climate communities. 

TABLE ?.-DIFFERENCES IN BUILDING ENVELOPE THERMAL REQUIREMENTS IN COLD CLIMATES BETWEEN THE 1989 AND 

1999 EDITIONS 

Envelope element 1989 edition cold climate (> 15,000 HDD65) re- quirements 

1999 Edition bin 25 (16,201-19,800 HDD65) re- quirements 

Opaque Wall ....................................... . U-0.053 for large buildings ................................... .. U-0.045 to 0.071, depending on type of wall. 

U-0.040 for small buildings 

Fenestration ........................................ . U-0.52 (for window to wall ratios of less than 0.2 U-0.43, for the corresponding WWR values. 

for large buildings and 0.15 for small buildings). 

Roof ..................................................... . 

Floor Over Unconditioned Space ....... .. 

Slab on Grade Insulation .................... . 

U-0.024 .................................................................. . 

U-0.023 .................................................................. . 

R-15 for 48 inches ................................................. . 

U-0.027 to 0.049, depending on type of roof. 

U-0.033 to 0.064, depending on type of floor. 

R-15, for 24 inches. 

Skylight ................................................ . Not allowed ............................................................ . U-0.95. 

5. Skylight Thermal Transmittance and 

Solar Heat Gain 

For buildings whose overall roof Ufactor, including skylights, is less than 

the 1989 edition's requirements, no 

separate skylight requirements must be 

met. For buildings that cannot meet this 

requirement, the 1989 edition contains 

skylight thermal transmittance 

requirements that are a function of 

heating degree days, base 65 degrees 

Fahrenheit, as well as provides credit 

toward the overall roof U-factor 

requirement, where lighting controls are 

used to reduce lighting consumption. 

The 1999 edition has separate 

requirements for glass skylights with 

curbs, plastic skylights with curbs, and 

skylights without curbs, which vary by 

climate bin. The least stringent of these 

are for glass skylights with curbs. The 

1999 edition provides no envelope 

credits for using lighting controls in 

conjunction with skylights. A 

comparison of the 1989 and 1999 

editions' U-factor requirements is 

shown in Table 8. The original 1989 

edition had U-factors based on center of 

window measurements. The 1999 

edition has U-factors based on whole 

window measurements. We used Ufactors based on whole window 

measurements which are incorporated 

in Addenda F to the 1989 edition, for an 

accurate comparison. 

TABLE 8.-COMPARISON OF SKYLIGHT U-FACTOR REQUIREMENTS IN THE 1989 AND 1999 EDITIONS 

Climates with: 1989 edition 1999 edition 

HDD65 <8000 ............................................................................................................................................... U-0.7 U-1.17 to 1.98 (glass). 

U-0.88 to 1.17 (glass). 

Included in U-factor for 

HDD65 28000 ............................................................................................................................................... U-0.52 

Skylight curbs all climates .................. ........................................................... ............................................... U-0.21 

Furthermore, the 1989 edition limits 

the maximum allowable percent of 

skylight area, based on skylight visible 

light transmittance, number of heating 

degree days, base 65 degrees Fahrenheit, 

number of cooling degree hours, base 80 

degrees Fahrenheit, foot candle level, 

and interior lighting power density. The 

allowable percent of roof area in 

skylight ranges from about 2 percent to 

skylights with curbs. 

12 percent for specific combinations. 

The 1999 edition limits skylights to 5 

percent of roof area. 

The 1989 edition is more stringent 

than the 1999 edition in terms of 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 46477 

required skylight U-factor. On the other 

hand, the total area of skylight that can 

be installed is less in the 1999 edition. 

In other words, the 1999 edition has 

greater restriction on tbe total roof area 

in skylights, but does allow skylights 

with a higher U-factor to be used. This 

essentially allows the user of the 1999 

edition to put in a smaller amount of 

less efficient skylight than the 1989 

edition. 

The 1989 edition does not have any 

requirements for skylight solar heat 

gain. The 1999 edition does include 

specific solar heat gain coefficient 

requirements for skylights. Solar heat 

gain coefficient values for glass 

skylights range from 0.16 in very warm 

climates to "No Requirement" in very 

cold climates. Implicit in the1989 

edition's thermal transmittance 

requirements, however, are SHGC 

values associated with the required 

glass. With required U-factors at 0.7 and 

0.52 for skylights, skylights would have 

to be constructed with glazing similar to 

double pane and double low-emissivity 

glazing. Such construction would have 

solar heat gain coefficient values of 0.68 

and 0.59. Using this logic, a comparison 

of skylight solar heat gain coefficient 

values is constructed in Table 9. Values 

are taken for five percent of the roof area 

in skylights, as this is the maximum 

prescriptive level in the 1999 edition. 

The upper range of solar heat gain 

coefficient values in the 1999 edition 

column is for cooler climates within 

each range. 

TABLE 9.-COMPARISON OF SOLAR HEAT GAIN COEFFICIENTS IN THE 1989 AND 1999 EDITIONS 

Climates with: 1989 edition 

SHGC 

1999 edition 

SHGC 

HDD65 9,500 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.68 0.16 to 0.62. 

HDD65 ?.7,500 <10,801 .......................................................................................................................................... 0.59 0.36 to 0.64. 

HDD65 >10,801 ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.59 No requirement. 

The 1999 edition solar heat gain 

coefficient requirement is more 

stringent for virtually all locations in the 

US. The 1989 edition does have lower 

solar heat gain coefficient requirements 

in very cold climates, but since solar 

gain is a net benefit in these climates, 

restricting solar gain provides no benefit. 

The lack of data on the amount of 

skylight in various parts of the country 

makes it inappropriate for us to reach a 

conclusion as to the net impacts of these 

changes. 

6. Slab-On-Grade and Below Grade Wall 

Insulation 

Slab-on-grade insulation requirements 

are nonexistent in both editions in 

warm climates. For cooler climates, the 

1989 edition requires between R-7 and 

R-8 for vertical insulation, extended 24 

inches deep, whereas there are 

effectively no requirements for slab 

insulation in the 1999 edition in the 

continental U.S. For heated slabs, the 

1989 edition requires an additional 

insulation level of R-2, to that required 

for unheated slabs, in all cases. For 

below grade walls, the 1989 edition 

requires insulation levels from R-7 to 

R-16, for the first story below grade, 

depending on location. Whereas there 

are effectively no requirements for 

below grade wall insulation in the 1999 

edition, until above 9,000 heating 

degree days, base 65 degrees Fahrenheit 

(much of Alaska and some northern 

Minnesota locations). The reduction of 

slab-on-grade and below grade wall 

insulation requirements in the 1999 

edition will result in higher heating 

loads in cold climates, particularly for 

small buildings, resulting in more 

energy use. While a reduction in 

stringency, the impact of the removal of 

below grade or slab wall insulation is 

tempered by the insulating effect of the 

surrounding earth, relative to removing 

insulation from envelope components 

exposed to the air and sun (such as 

walls and roofs). 

7. Roof Thermal Transmittance 

We looked at roof thermal 

transmittance requirements first by 

estimating the building footprint area 

(assumed to approximate the roof area) 

by dividing the floor area by the number 

of floors for each building type. We then 

applied the Commercial Building 

Energy Consumption Survey statistical 

weights to each building type, to 

develop a table of the estimated roof 

area. This was done for each roof 

surface type classification for each of 

the 18 building use classifications in the 

1992 Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey. There are 17 

Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey roof surface 

classifications, which were aggregated 

into the three roof types in the 1999 

standard as shown in Table 10, below. 

Where a significant fraction of a 

particular roof surface classification 

could be divided into one or more 

construction categories, estimates were 

made of the relative percentage in each 

category and are shown in parentheses 

in Table 10. Finally, the fraction of 

estimated roof area for each roof 

construction is shown for nonresidential, semi-heated, and residential 

space types. 

TABLE 10.-ESTIMATED ROOF AREA FRACTIONS BY 1999 EDITION ROOF CONSTRUCTION CATEGORY 

Estimated roof area fraction 

1999 edition room con- struction CBECS 1992 roof surface classifications (in percent) 

Non-residential Semi-heated a Residential b 

Insulation Entirely Above Built-up, Built-up & metal, Built-up & s/m ply, Com- 50.2 45.9 45.6 

Deck. posite, Foam/Styrofoam, Single/multiple ply (33%), 

Shingles & built-up (50%). 

Metal Building ................... Metal/Rubber (80%), Metal Surfacing (80%), Single/ 16.5 32.9 4.9 

multiple ply (33%). 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

46478 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 

TABLE 10.-ESTIMATED ROOF AREA FRACTIONS BY 1999 EDITION ROOF CONSTRUCTION CATEGORY-Continued 

Estimated roof area fraction 

1999 edition room con- CBECS 1992 roof surface classifications (in percent) 

struction 

Non-residential Semi-heated a Residential b 

Attic and Other ................. Concrete Roof, Metal/Rubber (20&), Metal Surfacing 

(20%), Other (specify), Shingles & metal, Shingles 

& s/m ply, Shingles (not wood), Single/multiple ply 

(33%), Shingles & built-up (50%), Slate & shingles, Slate or tile, Wooden materials. 

a Non-refrigerated warehouse assumed. b Lodging buildings only. 

Metal surfacing (about 13% of floor 

area) can be considered part of a metal 

building roof or a roof with metal joists 

(big box buildings such as Walmarts). 

The 80/20 split here allocates most of 

these surfaces to metal buildings which 

are the more prevalent class of new 

commercial construction. The shingles/ 

slate, tile/wooden materials, are likely 

to be in place on roofs with attics or 

single rafter roofs, because they rely on 

roof pitch to shed water. The remaining 

categories cover a variety of 

combinations of materials, mainly 

synthetic/rubber surfaces. Some of these 

may be flat roofs, but they could be 

metal joists roofs or deck roofs. We 

allocated these evenly over the 1999 

edition's roof construction categories. 

The fractions of roof types estimated 

were used to weight the required Ufactors from the 1999 edition for each 

climate and for each category of 

building, non-residential, semi-heated, 

and residential. 

The results shown in Table 11 suggest 

that for most non-residential buildings, 

the 1999 edition has more stringent roof 

U-factor requirements in warm to mild 

climates (significantly so in Knoxville 

and Los Angeles, moderately so in 

Orlando, Seattle, and Shreveport, and 

slightly so in Fresno). It is slightly less 

stringent in the cooler climates of 

Denver, Detroit, and Providence, and is 

significantly less stringent in 

Minneapolis and Phoenix. Overall, we 

expect a slight increase in heating 

energy use and slight decrease in 

cooling energy use for most nonresidential buildings from these 

requirements. 

The semi-heated building category in 

the 1999 edition shows a substantial 

33.3 21.2 49.4 

increase in average U-factor for all 

buildings, which is expected to result in 

increased energy use due to increased 

heating loads for these buildings. 

A comparison of the requirements for 

the residential space category in the 

1999 edition shows a reduction in Ufactor (increase in stringency) for all 

climates except Los Angeles, which 

shows a substantial increase in U-factor 

(decrease in stringency). 

Overall, it is expected that the 

changes in U-factor requirements in the 

1999 edition will result in some 

increase in heating energy use, 

primarily as a result of the significant 

changes in requirements for semi-heated 

spaces. It is expected that it will also 

result in some decrease in cooling 

energy use in most (but not all climates). 

TABLE 11.-AVERAGE ROOF U-FACTOR REQUIRED 

City 

Denver ................................................................................. . 

Detroit .................................................................................. . 

Fresno ................................................................................. . 

Knoxville .............................................................................. . 

Los Angeles ........................................................................ . 

Minneapolis ......................................................................... . 

Orlando ............................................................................... . 

Phoenix ............................................................................... . 

Providence .......................................................................... . 

Seattle ................................................................................. . 

Shreveport ........................................................................... . 

1 Negative U-factors indicate decreased stringency. 

1989 edition 

0.051 

0.053 

0.059 

0.110 

0.100 

0.045 

0.063 

0.046 

0.053 

0.064 

0.066 

Non-res 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.070 

0.051 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

0.054 

8. Floors Over Unconditioned Spaces 

For each climate, the 1989 edition 

provides a single prescriptive U-factor 

for floors, while the 1999 edition 

provides nine possible U-factors (or Rvalues) depending on building type and 

floor type. The range of requirements for 

the 1999 edition addresses wood 

framed, steel framed, and mass 

(concrete) floor construction separately. 

Typically, wood framed floors have the 

lowest (most stringent) U-factor 

requirement, while mass floors have the 

highest (least stringent) U-factor. The 

1999 edition Change 1989-

Semi-heated Residential 1999 Non-res1 

0.123 0.045 -0.003 

0.123 0.045 0.001 

0.172 0.045 0.005 

0.149 0.045 0.056 

0.202 0.200 0.030 

0.123 0.045 0.006 

1.140 0.045 0.009 

0.172 0.045 0.008 

0.123 0.045 0.001 

0.149 0.049 0.010 

0.172 0.045 0.012 

1999 edition is typically more stringent 

for wood framed and steel framed floors, 

and less stringent for mass floors in 

nonresidential (and residential) 

buildings. The 1999 edition is less 

stringent for semi-heated buildings. See 

Table 12. 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 46479 

TABLE 12.-COMPARISON OF FLOOR OVER UNCONDITIONED SPACE U-FACTOR CRITERIA IN THE 1989 AND 1999 EDITIONS 

1999 edition 1989-1999 difference 

1989 edition Non-residential Semi-heated Non-residential 

City all floors Wood Steel Wood Steel Wood Steel frame & Mass joists Mass frame & joists Mass frame & joists other other other 

Orlando ............... 0.28 No requirement No requirement 0.280 

Phoenix .............. 0.19 0.051 

Los Angeles ....... 0.17 

Shreveport .......... 0.11 

Fresno ................ 0.10 

Knoxville ............. 0.074 0.051 

Seattle ................ 0.056 

Denver ................ 0.049 0.033 

Detroit ................. 0.048 

Providence ......... 0.048 

Minneapolis ........ 0.040 

9. Opaque Wall Thermal Transmittance 

The 1989 edition provides a single 

prescriptive U-factor for lightweight 

walls and a range of possible U-factors 

for mass walls (depending on thermal 

mass, percent fenestration, and internal 

load density), while the 1999 edition 

provides 12 possible U-factors (or Rvalues) depending on building type and 

wall construction. The maximum 

thermal transmittance requirements for 

mass walls in the 1999 edition generally 

fall within the range of allowable values 

in the 1989 edition, except for semiheated buildings where in all cases the 

1999 criteria are less stringent. 

However, since buildings in the semiheated category are expected to have 

relatively low heating loads (due to the 

low internal temperature and limited 

0.052 0.137 No requirement 0.139 0.138 0.053 

0.052 0.107 0.660 0.069 

0.052 0.087 0.066 0.069 

heating capacity) and no cooling loads, 

the reduction in stringency is expected 

to have a minimal impact. The difference in criteria for 

lightweight walls between the 1989 and 

1999 editions varies, with some wall 

types being more stringent in some 

locations and other less stringent. In 

general, wood framed wall requirements 

in the 1999 edition are most likely to be 

more stringent than corresponding 

requirements in the 1989 edition. 

To compare requirements for mass 

walls in the1989 edition, we used the 

Alternate Component Packages tables to 

determine U-factor requirements for 8 

inch solid concrete and solid grouted 

concrete block mass walls (Heat 

Capacity> 15 Btu/ft\2\-F) as well as for 

8 inch unfilled or insulated concrete 

block walls (10 Btu/ft\2\-F <Heat 

0.119 0.118 0.033 

0.059 0.058 0.027 

0.049 0.048 0.037 

0.322 0.023 0.022 -0.033 

0.050 0.004 0.051 

0.322 0.016 0.003 -0.038 

0.015 0.004 0.039 

0.015 0.004 -0.039 

0.007 -0.012 0.047 

Capacity< 15 Btu/ft\2\-F). We did this 

for insulation on the inside of the wall; 

integral with the wall; and on the 

outside of the wall, under each of the 

three internal load density (ILD) ranges 

in the Alternate Component Packages 

tables. This was done for the 11 

locations and for 18 percent and 38 

percent window to wall area ratios. The 

requirements used were based on 

interpolation across the tabulated 

fenestration levels. For each internal 

load density range, we averaged together 

all calculated U-factor requirements. 

These results are shown in Table 13. In 

addition, we show the 1999 edition's Ufactor requirements by that edition's 

three space-type categories (nonresidential, residential, and semiheated). 

TABLE 13.-MASS WALL REQUIREMENTS COMPARISON 

1989 edition mass wall requirements 1999 edition mass wall requirements U-Factor difference 

Location Interior load density Non-resi- Semi-heat- Non-resi- Non-residential Residential ed dential dentiala Residential b 

Low Medium High 

ORL .......... 0.624 0.649 0.636 0.58 0.151 0.58 -0.062 -0.473 -0.044 

PHX .......... 0.404 0.403 0.400 0.58 0.151 0.58 0.179 -0.253 0.176 

LOS .......... 0.737 0.791 0.793 0.58 0.151 0.58 0.212 -0.586 -0.157 

SHR .......... 0.301 0.327 0.328 0.58 0.123 0.58 0.252 -0.178 0.279 

FRS .......... 0.293 0.307 0.311 0.58 0.151 0.58 0.271 -0.142 0.287 

KNX .......... 0.166 0.185 0.188 0.151 0.104 0.58 -0.036 -0.062 0.414 

SEA .......... 0.123 0.140 0.147 0.151 0.104 0.58 0.007 -0.019 0.458 

DET .......... 0.100 0.107 0.109 0.123 0.09 0.58 0.015 0.010 0.480 

DEN .......... 0.131 0.144 0.144 0.123 0.09 0.58 -0.021 0.041 0.449 

PRV .......... 0.100 0.107 0.109 0.123 0.09 0.58 0.015 -0.010 0.480 

MNP ......... 0.078 0.087 0.088 0.104 0.09 0.58 0.017 0.012 0.502 

a Non-Residential versus average of Medium and High Interior Load Density cases. 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

46480 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 

b Residential versus Low Interior Load Density case. 

c Semi-heated versus Low Interior Load Density case. 

The difference in required U-factors 

for typical buildings is also shown in 

Table 13. For this comparison, we have 

assumed that most non-residential 

buildings in the 1999 edition would fall 

into either the medium or high interior 

load density ranges of the 1989 edition. 

The average U-factor for both of these 

interior load density ranges was used in 

the comparison. Most residential 

buildings would fall into the low 

interior load density range of the 1989 

edition. Most semi-heated building 

spaces (assumed to be similar to 

warehouse buildings) would likely fall 

under the low interior load density 

range of the 1989 edition. As can be 

seen from the table, the requirements of 

the 1999 edition are more stringent for 

residential buildings, in almost all 

climates. This is particularly so in 

moderate to warm climates. The 1999 

edition is considerably less stringent for 

semi-heated buildings in all but Orlando 

and Los Angeles, where heating losses 

are not expected to be significant. The 

1999 edition is generally less stringent 

for non-residential construction in 

moderate to warm climates and slightly 

less stringent for cool or cold climates. 

Overall, it is expected that the reduced 

U-factor requirements for mass walls in 

the non-residential and semi-heated 

category will result in increased heating 

energy use over the 90.1-1989 mass 

wall requirements. 

10. Window Thermal Transmittance and 

Solar Heat Gain 

The 1989 edition does not specifically 

provide a prescriptive approach to 

window thermal transmittance or solar 

heat gain, but rather treats windows as 

a component of the building wall, where 

the wall must have certain overall 

heating and cooling performance to 

show compliance. However, the ACP 

(Alternate Component Packages) tables, 

which set out prescriptive requirements 

for the building envelope, provide tables 

of maximum percentage of wall glazing 

as a function of window U-factor, 

shading coefficient, projection factor, 

and building internal gains. The 1999 

edition, by contrast, provides 

prescriptive U-factor requirements and 

Solar Heat Gain Coefficient 

requirements for particular 

combinations of percentage of glazing 

and building category (non-residential, 

residential, semi-heated), simplifying 

use and enforcement. Both editions 

require the use of an energy tradeoff 

methodology for buildings with very 

high percentages of window area 

(typically greater than 50 percent). 

For our analysis, we assumed the 

mid-internal gain range of the ACP 

tables (1.51-3.00 W/ft2) as being 

typical of the non-residential building 

loads, and the low-internal gain range of 

the ACP tables (0.0-1.5 W/ft2) as 

being typical of semi-heated buildings 

such as warehouses. For residential 

space types such as hotels and 

hospitals, we assumed either low-or 

mid-internal gain ranges of the ACP 

tables could be appropriate in the 1989 

edition. For multi-family high rise 

buildings we assumed low-internal gain 

ranges. 

For these typical levels of internal 

gains, the requirements for window 

thermal transmittance in residential and 

non-residential buildings are very 

similar in both editions. The 1989 

edition is somewhat more stringent in 

cold climates in buildings with a high 

percentage of glazing. The 1999 edition 

is marginally more stringent in the rest 

of the country. For semi-heated 

buildings, the requirements in the 1999 

edition are less stringent, except for in 

warm climates where both editions 

require single pane glass. 

Window solar heat gain requirements 

in the 1999 edition are typically more 

stringent in buildings with lower 

glazing areas (less than 30 percent), but 

often less stringent in buildings with 

higher glazing areas (38 percent or 45 

percent). Maximum solar heat gain 

requirements do not exist for semiheated buildings in the 1999 edition. 

However, limiting solar heat gain does 

not reduce energy use for a building that 

is only heated. 

For windows with northern 

orientations, the 1999 edition generally 

allows greater solar heat gain per 

window area than the 1989 edition. A 

review of six of the seven building types 

(not including warehouse buildings 

which are commonly semiheated 

buildings) in the quantitative analysis 

suggested that approximately 73% of 

the floor area of these buildings would 

be in buildings with glazing fractions of 

less than 30%. This suggests that 

overall, the 1999 edition is more energy 

efficient in reducing solar heat gain in 

most buildings. It is somewhat less 

efficient with regard to window thermal 

transmittance, particularly in cold 

climates. 

11. Opaque Doors 

The 1999 edition contains explicit Ufactor requirements for both swinging 

and non-swinging doors, with 

requirements ranging from a U-factor of 

0.5 (for both door types in cold climates) 

to 1.45 for uninsulated doors of both 

types. An insulated metal door or a 

solid wood door requires a U-factor of 

0.5. Glass doors that are more than onehalf glass are considered to be 

equivalent to vertical fenestration and 

would need to meet vertical glazing 

requirements. The 1989 edition does not 

explicitly deal with either opaque or 

glazed doors, but instead treats them as 

part of the overall wall requirement. 

Opaque doors are part of the opaque 

wall, glass doors are part of the glazed 

area. Since the required thermal 

performance of opaque doors in the 

1999 edition is generally worse than 

that of the surrounding opaque wall 

area, and the opaque door requirements 

are included in the overall wall 

requirements of the 1989 edition, the 

requirements of the 1999 edition are less 

stringent. Doors represent a small 

percentage of the wall area of multistory 

buildings. They also represent a fairly 

small percentage of the wall area of 

many large single story buildings. Most 

commercial entrance doors are glazed, 

reducing the impact of the difference in 

opaque door requirements. We therefore 

conclude that the energy impact of this 

change is likely to be small for most 

buildings. However, in individual 

buildings with a significant number of 

doors, such as some warehouses, the 

impact may be significant. 

C. Mechanical Equipment and Systems 

1. Load Calculations and Sizing 

The 1999 edition has no explicit 

sizing requirements for heating 

ventilation and air-conditioning 

systems. The1989 edition requires the 

use of a computational procedure for 

load calculations, and it details 

selection of indoor and outdoor design 

temperature, the use of Standard 62-89 

for minimum ventilation, and a 

selection of allowed sources for internal 

gain data. The 1989 edition also 

explicitly allows a ten percent safety 

factor for steady-state design loads and 

additional 30 percent and ten percent 

multipliers beyond that to account for 

heating and cooling pick-up loads. 

However, these additional parameters 

represent typical values or sources for 

sizing calculation data. The omission of 

explicit sizing requirements for heating 

ventilation and air-conditioning 

systems, while unlikely to have much 

impact on large commercial buildings, 

which are typically designed by 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 46481 

engineering professionals, could have a significant impact on smaller 

commercial buildings, especially 

design-build facilities. The inclusion of 

explicit maximum safety factors in the 

1989 standard recognizes the tendency 

for much larger values to be used by 

system designers. The exclusion of such 

factors in the 1999 standard has the 

potential for significantly oversizing 

equipment, resulting in operating 

inefficiency. 

2. Separate Air Distribution Systems 

The 1989 edition requires that zones 

with special process, temperature, and/ 

or humidity requirements, either be 

served by air distribution systems 

separate from those used to satisfy zones 

conditioned for comfort only, or have 

provisions to allow control for comfort 

conditioning only. An exception to this 

allows up to 25 percent of the air flow 

serving primarily process systems to be 

directed for comfort cooling only needs 

with no system design modification. 

This exception might be used for office 

space in an industrial facility. This 

requirement provides the ability to 

operate the primary heating ventilation 

and air-conditioning systems for 

comfort conditioning only when 

processes are not operating. The 1999 

edition has no requirements explicitly 

for systems and equipment used for 

process applications. However, where 

systems would also serve spaces 

conditioned for comfort only, the 

equipment and system requirements of 

the 1999 edition would apply. In 

particular, requirements referring to 

zone isolation, dehumidification, and 

simultaneous heating and cooling 

would address most of the issues 

addressed by the separate air 

distribution system requirement in the 

1989 edition. This will result in a minor 

reduction in stringency in a limited 

number of buildings. 

3. Temperature Controls 

The 1999 edition has an additional 

requirement that all zone and loop 

controllers shall incorporate control 

error correction. In addition, it 

explicitly requires a set point overlap 

restriction when the heating and cooling 

to a zone are controlled by separate 

thermostats within that zone. In the 

1989 edition, it is not clear whether 

individual thermostats are required that 

control both heating and cooling to a 5 

degree Fahrenheit deadband, or whether 

it means that the space should be 

controlled to provide a 5 degree 

Fahrenheit deadband. The additional 

requirements make the 1999 edition 

clearer as to the requirements and better 

at controlling room temperature and 

will limit reheating and recooling done 

by separate systems, which will provide 

improved efficiency over the 1989 

edition. 

4. Off-Hour Controls and Setback 

The 1999 edition requirements for offhour controls are limited to systems 

with heating or cooling capacity greater 

than 65,000 Btu per hour and fan system 

power greater than:% horsepower. The 

requirement for off-hour controls in the 

1989 edition are for systems greater than 

two kilowatts. Exceptions are also made 

for heating ventilation and airconditioning systems serving hotel or 

motel guest rooms. In these cases the 

1999 edition is less stringent. However, 

the optimum start controls required in 

the 1999 edition for large systems, 

should reduce the number of hours 

needed to bring the building to 

operating temperature. 

The 1989 edition allows either 

independent shut-off controls or setback 

controls to reduce heating and cooling 

to the zone. The 1999 edition requires 

automatic shutoff controls for the 

supply of conditioned air, outside air, 

and exhaust air to each independent 

isolation area, as well as automatic 

shutdown controls. However, it 

specifically allows substitution of a 

system air flow reduction in the nonoccupied zones, but limits the total 

volume of air to those zones to 14 

percent of the system airflow. The 1999 

edition, by requiring maximum setback 

air volumes, has explicit, and therefore 

more stringent, off-hour requirements. 

These would be achieved by simple 

thermostat setback. Both editions 

incorporate different exceptions to these 

off-hour requirements for multi-zone 

systems. Our limited data on 

commercial building multi-zone 

systems and operating schedules is 

insufficient to evaluate these 

exceptions. 

5. Dampers 

The 1999 edition requires motorized 

dampers in stair and elevator shafts and 

in all outdoor air supply exhaust hoods, 

vents, and ventilators. Gravity dampers 

are acceptable on buildings less than 

three stories and of any height in 

buildings in climates with less than 

2,700 heating degree days, base 65 

degrees Fahrenheit. These damper 

performance requirements are more 

stringent than similar requirements in 

the 1989 edition. However, the 

requirements in the 1999 edition pertain 

to fewer systems (only to systems larger 

than 65,000 Btu per hour). The 1989 

edition requires dampers (motorized or 

gravity) or other means of volume shutoff or reduction. It exempts supply and 

exhaust systems less than or equal to 

3,000 cubic feet per minute, in warm 

climates (less than or equal to 3,000 

heating degree days. base 65 degrees 

Fahrenheit). Overall, the 1999 edition is 

considerably more stringent for large 

systems, but is less stringent for small 

systems in climates above 3,000 heating 

degree days, base 65 degrees Fahrenheit. 

6. Humidity Control 

The 1989 edition had a requirement 

that any humidity control device 

(humidistat) be capable of limiting the 

use of fossil fuel or electric energy to 

provide relative humidities of greater 

than 30 percent or less than 60 percent. 

This range limit setpoint requirement 

for zone humidification is not included 

in the 1999 edition. Instead a 

requirement for having the capability to 

prevent simultaneous humidification or 

dehumidification was added, with an 

exception for zones with tight humidity 

requirements, approved by local 

authorities, or for desiccant systems 

used in series with evaporative cooling. 

Minimum impact is expected from this 

change as both editions effectively 

require systems with both 

humidification and dehumidification to 

have the controls to limit possible waste 

of energy that would result from 

simultaneous humidification and 

dehumidification. 

7. Radiant Heating 

The title, purpose, and scope of the 

1989 edition do not include unenclosed 

spaces, and has no requirements for 

heating such spaces. Hence, warm air 

heating systems may be used. By 

specifically including such spaces as 

loading docks without air curtains in 

the 1999 edition's title, purpose, and 

scope, and requiring radiant heating 

systems (excluding warm air systems). 

energy will be saved by requiring more 

efficient systems for that application. 

8. Ventilation 

The 1989 edition requires ventilation 

systems be designed capable of 

providing the ventilation levels 

prescribed in Standard 62-1989. The 

1989 edition did not set the ventilation 

rate, but rather specified a minimum 

operational ventilation rate the system 

must be designed to provide. Operation 

of a system at higher or lower 

ventilation rates is allowed under the 

1989 edition. The 1999 edition omits 

these requirements. No savings or loss 

in efficiency should occur from this 

specific change. 

Further, the new requirements in the 

1999 edition for automatic ventilation 

controls for high occupancy areas make 

the 1999 edition more stringent than the 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

46482 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 

1989 edition and should provide some energy savings. 

9. Pipe and Duct Insulation 

The 1999 edition has slightly less 

stringent pipe insulation requirements 

than the 1989 edition for most building 

applications. The 1999 edition does not 

require insulation of piping unions in 

heating systems or hot water piping 

between the shutoff valve and coil (up 

to 4 feet of pipe), in conditioned spaces. 

It requires more insulation on higher 

temperature (> 250 F) piping, and less 

insulation on lower temperature heating 

system and service hot water piping. In 

contrast, the 1989 edition requires more 

insulation on low temperature cooling 

system piping. Overall, there appears to 

be some small reduction in insulation 

requirements. However, since the piping 

is insulated under both standards, the 

incremental reduction in insulation is 

expected to have minimal impact. 

The 1999 edition has significantly less 

stringent duct insulation requirements 

for some categories of ducts than the 

1989 edition. For cooling only ducts, the 

1999 edition requires generally lower 

insulation levels for ducts located 

outside the building, and insulation 

levels at or lower than required in the 

1989 edition for most spaces inside the 

building. The 1999 edition, generally 

requires higher insulation levels for 

ventilated attics and for unvented attics 

with non-insulated attic decks, which 

can be high temperature areas of the 

building. It requires no insulation for 

indirectly conditioned spaces including 

return air plenums. 

For heating only ducts, the 1999 

edition requires somewhat less 

insulation on exterior heating ducts, 

except in the most extreme heating 

climates, where it requires more than 

the 1989 edition. It requires very little 

insulation on heating-only ductwork 

located inside the building envelope. 

For return ducts located exterior to 

the building, the 1999 edition requires 

lower insulation levels than the 1989 

edition. The lower duct insulation 

requirements are likely to be most 

significant for heating-only ducts in 

climates where insulation is not 

required for particular attics or 

unconditioned spaces. The reduction in 

the minimum insulation level for 

cooling only ductwork is significant for 

central systems that rely on year round 

cooling availability (such as variable air 

volume or dual duct systems). Both 

insulation reductions will decrease 

energy efficiency of the 1999 edition. 

Finally, the 1999 edition does not 

restrict the use of pressure sensitive tape 

at seal level C for supply pressures up 

to 2 inches of pressure, whereas the 

1989 edition restricts its use for seal 

class C above 1 inch. Research is 

ongoing regarding the impact of this, 

however, we believe that there is a 

potential reduction in energy efficiency 

with the 1999 edition. 

10. Heat Recovery 

New requirements in the 1999 edition 

for exhaust air heat recovery for systems 

of 5,000 cubic feet per minute or greater 

with 70 percent or greater outside air, 

will have significant positive impact on 

energy efficiency in heating ventilation 

and air-conditioning systems with high 

outside air requirements. However, the 

number of buildings that have these 

systems and that are exempted is 

significant. 

Requirements have also been added 

that condenser heat recovery be used to 

provide heating of service hot water for 

buildings with a combination of 

continuous operation, high water 

heating loads (greater than 1,000,000 

Btu per hour) and high cooling loads 

(approximately 400 tons). Primary 

examples are large hotel facilities. These 

requirements significantly increase 

efficiency, but in a relatively small 

percentage of buildings. 

11. Completion Requirements 

Both editions have requirements for 

testing and balancing of heating 

ventilation and air-conditioning 

equipment. The 1999 edition requires a 

written balancing report for zones more 

than 5,000 square feet in area, as well 

as requires the ability to measure 

differential pressure across pumps 

greater than 10 horsepower in size. For 

buildings larger than 50,000 square feet 

conditioned area, detailed 

commissioning instructions for heating 

ventilation and air-conditioning systems 

are required to be provided by the 

designer in plans and specifications. An 

exception to this requirement is made 

for warehouses and semi heated spaces. 

The more detailed and extensive 

documentation requirements have the 

potential to provide long-term energy 

efficiency beyond what would be 

expected under the minimum 

completion requirements of the 1989 

edition. 

12. Simultaneous Heating and Cooling 

Controls 

The 1989 and 1999 editions have 

essentially identical text requiring that 

zone thermostatic and humidistatic 

controls shall be capable of operating 

the supply of heating and cooling 

energy in sequence to prevent reheating, 

recooling, or mixing of previously 

heated and cooled air, or other 

simultaneous operation of heating and 

cooling systems in the same zone. 

Similarly, exceptions are provided for 

both editions regarding: (1) Zones with 

special pressurization or crosscontamination requirements; (2) zones 

where at least 75 percent of the reheat 

energy is provided from a site-recovered 

or site-solar source; and (3) where the 

reheated volume of supply air to a zone 

is no greater than the maximum of 

several defined limits. However, the 

1999 standard provides much more 

detail regarding the possible 

characterization of the circumstances 

under which these exceptions would 

apply. In the third category, the 1999 

edition changes the stipulations to limit 

the use of most of these maximumreheated-air exceptions. These changes 

should result in a reduction in building 

energy use for many common multizone heating ventilation and airconditioning system designs. 

13. Economizer Controls 

The 1999 edition requires 

economizers in fewer locations than the 

1989 edition, but requires them in the 

locations of the country where they are 

expected to be most beneficial. The 

1989 edition requires economizers on 

7.5 ton or larger equipment in climates 

where economizers are required. The 

1999 edition uses a sliding scale of 

economizer requirements. These 

requirements depend on climate and 

system size. They range from 65,000 Btu 

per hour equipment in climates where 

economizers are most effective to 

135,000 Btu per hour where 

economizers are least effective. In 

addition, the 1999 edition requires air 

economizers to be capable of providing 

100 percent of the design supply air 

quantity, versus only 85 percent in the 

1989 edition. In addition, the 1999 

edition specifies: (1) Allowed 

economizer control types to maximize 

economizer savings in specific climates, 

(2) leakage rates for outside air dampers, 

and (3) that economizer dampers in 

multi-zone systems be capable of being 

sequenced with the mechanical cooling 

equipment and not be controlled by 

only mixed air temperature. In general, 

the 1999 edition attempts to provide 

more economizer savings where 

economizers are most beneficial. 

14. Fan System Design Criteria 

Both editions will result in similar fan 

power efficiencies. However, the 1999 

edition requires the efficiencies be 

included on motor nameplates, in order 

to make them more easily inspected. In 

addition, the 1999 edition places these 

requirements on fan motors of five 

horsepower and above, whereas the 

1989 edition places requirements on 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135 /Monday, July 15, 2002 /Notices 46483 

motors that are ten horsepower and 

above. The 1999 edition also has more 

stringent unloading requirements for 

variable air volume fans. The 1999 

edition places those requirements on 

variable air volume systems of 30 

horsepower and above, as compared to 

variable air volume systems of 75 

horsepower and above, as specified in 

the 1989 edition. Both the constant 

volume and variable volume fan power 

requirements will be extended to far 

more system types in the 1999 edition. 

Overall, there is expected to be a 

reduction in allowed fan power use in 

the 1999 edition, particularly for multi- zone systems. 

15. Pumping System Design 

Both editions require that pumping 

systems designed for variable flow be 

designed to allow flow variation down 

to 50 percent of design flow rates. The 

1999 edition also has a requirement 

that, for systems with more than 100 

feet of pumping head and motors greater 

than 50 horsepower power, 

consumption at 50 percent flow, be no 

more than 30 percent of design flow. 

This will effectively require variable 

speed pump drives on these large 

pumping systems. Exceptions are made 

for pumps less than 75 horsepower 

where reduction of flow would be below 

the minimum flow requirements for 

heating ventilation and air-conditioning 

equipment and for systems that include 

no more than three control valves. 

Significant energy savings will result 

from application of the 1999 edition in 

larger pumping systems due to these 

part-load performance requirements. 

16. Temperature Reset Controls 

The 1989 edition requires system 

temperature reset controls on both 

multi-zone air systems and large, nonvariable-flow hedonic systems. These 

controls shall be capable of providing a 

reset of at least 25 percent of the design 

supply to room air temperature 

difference, with some exceptions, most 

notably for low zone flow rates or for 

systems not capable of providing reheat. 

The primary purpose of this 

requirement is to reduce reheat in air 

systems. Supply water temperatures 

must also be capable of a reset 

equivalent to 25 percent of the design 

supply-to-return water temperature 

difference. This requirement does not 

apply to hydronic systems that can 

provide a 50 percent reduction in 

system flow, or are less than 600,000 

Btu per hour in capacity. Nor does it 

apply to reset controls that would cause 

improper operation of heating, cooling, 

humidification, or dehumidification 

systems. 

The 1999 edition requires reset on 

chilled and hot water temperature 

controls used for heating ventilation and 

air-conditioning systems more than 

300,000 Btu per hour design capacity. 

Direct energy savings are expected from 

the reset of the supply water 

temperature from chiller and boiler, and 

the air supply temperatures in the 

system are assumed to follow the water 

temperature reset. An exception is made 

for hydronic systems that use variable 

flow to reduce pumping energy, or for 

systems where reset would cause 

improper operation of heating, cooling, 

humidification or dehumidification 

systems. Overall, there is little net 

change in the reset requirements for 

hydronic systems other than the 1999 

edition applying them to more systems. 

The 1999 edition removes the air 

supply reset requirements, while 

directly addressing simultaneous 

heating and cooling. This is addressed 

by better limiting the amount of air 

reheated or recooled and is set forth in 

a new section of the standard (see 

Simultaneous Heating and Cooling 

Controls above). Some minimal 

degradation in efficiency is expected 

from removal of the supply air reset 

requirements, but this is likely to be 

mitigated by the increase in efficiency 

from requiring reset on smaller hydronic 

systems. 

17. Hot Gas Bypass Restriction 

The 1999 edition introduces a new 

requirement that restricts the use of hot 

gas bypass in cooling equipment unless 

the equipment is designed with 

multiple steps of unloading. In the latter 

case, hot gas bypass is allowed, but 

maximum hot gas bypass levels are 

specified as a fraction of total capacity 

for different sizes of cooling equipment. 

This requirement will provide an 

improvement in part-load performance 

for cooling equipment, where 

manufacturers are not already 

incorporating multiple steps of 

unloading. 

18. Heating Ventilation and AirConditioning Equipment 

The 1999 edition provides updated 

equipment efficiency requirements with 

an effective date of October 29, 2001. 

Tables 6.2.lA-6.2.lG of the 1999 

edition show the existing 1989 edition's 

heating ventilation and air-conditioning 

equipment efficiency requirements 

(shown in the "minimum efficiency" 

column) with the 1999 edition's update 

requirements shown in the "Efficiency 

as of October 29, 2001" column in each 

table across heating and cooling product 

categories. Where the 1999 edition has 

equipment efficiency requirements but 

the 1989 edition does not (as is the case 

with absorption and heat rejection 

equipment for example) increased 

energy efficiency occurs unless the 

requirements are set at or below 

common practice. In these cases, we 

used ASHRAE's assessment of the 

minimum performance of the 

equipment used in common practice as 

a baseline. A summary of the shipped 

capacity weighted efficiency 

improvements across generic product 

categories is shown in Table 14. 

TABLE 14.-SHIPPED CAPACITY 

WEIGHTED EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT ACROSS GENERIC PRODUCT 

CATEGORIES, INCLUDING EQUIPMENT 

SHIPMENTS TO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS COVERED BY FEDERAL MANUFACTURING STANDARDS 

Equipment category 

Unitary Air Conditioners 

and Condensing Units 

Unitary and Applied Heat 

Pumps ....................... .. 

Electrically Operated 

Water Chillers ........... .. 

Absorption Chillers ........ . 

Packaged Terminal Air 

Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps ....................... .. 

Room Air Conditioners ... 

Furnaces, Duct FurEstimated full load 

efficiency improvement (in percent) 

7 

9.2 

16.8 

5.2+ 

22.4 

10.1 

naces, Unit Heaters .. .. 

Boilers ............................ . 

O+ 

0 

The absorption chillers 5.2 percent 

estimated full load efficiency 

improvement is based on double effect 

chillers. The 1989 edition had no 

efficiency requirement for absorption 

chiller equipment. Based on an industry 

derived market baseline for double 

effect chillers provided during the 

development of the 1999 edition, the 

1989 edition's performance coefficient 

is 0.95. Therefore, selection of the 1999 

edition's coefficient of performance of 

1.0 will provide improved efficiency. 

Improvements of up to 25 percent above 

market minimums are estimated for 

single effect equipment. 

The full load efficiency improvement 

in room air-conditioners in the 1999 

edition were adopted from the 

Department's manufacturing standard 

requirements, effective October 1, 2000 

(10 CFR 430). These efficiency 

improvements cannot be attributed to 

the improved requirements of the 1999 

edition. 

For furnaces, duct furnaces, and unit 

heaters, changes were made to test 

procedures and efficiency descriptors 

for unit heaters, but no net change was 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

46484 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 

made in efficiency in the 1999 edition. 

Improved prescriptive requirements in 

the 1999 edition for warm-air furnaces 

such as requirements for intermittent 

ignition or interrupted device and jacket 

loss limits, will improve annual 

efficiency. 

For boilers, the full load thermal 

efficiency descriptor was improved in 

the 1999 edition, but not the boiler 

efficiency requirements. The 1999 

edition's requirements for thermal 

efficiency will remove some boilers 

from the market that currently meet the 

single 80 percent combustion efficiency 

requirement in the 1989 edition, and 

have thermal efficiencies of less than 75 

percent. This is particularly true of 

steam boilers. 

In addition to providing updated 

efficiency requirements for most 

commercial equipment, the 1999 edition 

subdivides several of the original 1989 

edition product categories and adds new 

efficiency requirements for heat 

rejection equipment that were not 

covered under the 1989 edition. The 

1999 edition provides coefficient of 

performance and integrated part-load 

value requirements for centrifugal 

chillers operating at other than nominal 

test conditions. It also expresses 

efficiency requirements, for boilers less 

than or equal to 2.5 million Btu per hour 

input rating, using true thermal 

efficiency, as opposed to combustion 

efficiency requirements in the 1989 

edition. The 1999 edition provides 

separate efficiency requirements for 

packaged terminal air conditioner and 

packaged terminal heat pump 

equipment. The 1999 edition also 

updates efficiency requirements to 

reflect changing test procedures and 

mandates the use of either intermittent 

or interrupted ignition devices and 

power venting or flue dampers on 

forced air furnaces. Finally, the 1999 

edition restricts jacket losses on gas and 

electric furnaces located outside the 

conditioned space. 

The 1999 edition provides significant 

improvement to cooling equipment 

efficiencies, and minor increases in 

average oil or gas space heating 

equipment efficiency due to a change in 

either efficiency designator or shell loss 

requirements. It also provides for a 

moderate increase in heat pump heating 

side efficiency. All of these 

requirements (except for room airconditioners) will improve the general 

efficiency of commercial space 

conditioning products beyond that 

required in the 1989 edition and will 

thus contribute to energy savings with 

the 1999 edition. 

19. Service Water Heating Equipment 

Efficiency 

The 1999 edition sets service water 

heating (SWH) equipment efficiencies 

for gas and oil fired equipment at, or 

moderately higher than, the 1989 

edition levels. It improves thermal 

efficiencies from two to three percentage 

points for gas water heaters with 

integral storage, and improves thermal 

efficiencies one percent for oil fired 

instantaneous water heaters with 

integral storage, as well as for the 

similarly defined category of "hot water 

supply boiler." 

For the 1999 edition, the general form 

of the equations for standby loss for oil 

and gas water heaters were slightly 

modified and rewritten to include a fuel 

input rating variable and the definition 

of the volume in the equation. In the 

1989 edition, the standby loss was 

purely a function of volume. With the 

modification in the 1999 edition of the 

standby loss equation, standby loss is 

now a function of both volume and 

input rating. For gas and oil water 

heaters, the stringencies of each 

standard are roughly the same within 

each of the individual product 

categories. This allows somewhat more 

standby loss for large input rating 

products and allows somewhat less 

standby loss for smaller input rating 

products. Without very detailed 

information about the shipped quantity 

of products within a size category, it is 

unknown whether there is a net change 

in efficiency. For electric water heaters 

greater than 12 kilowatt input, the 1999 

edition does appear to allow marginally 

greater standby loss, as the formula is 

based on rated as opposed to measured 

volume. This allows a ten percent 

variation between the rated and 

measured volume. However, since this 

product is covered by a Federal national 

manufacturing standard that is more 

stringent than the requirements of the 

1999 edition and the federal standard 

preempts state or local regulation, the 

reduced stringency in the 1999 will not 

reduce energy efficiency. 

20. Service Water Heating Controls 

Both the 1989 and 1999 edition have 

requirements for a minimum service hot 

water temperature control capability set 

point. as well as a maximum control 

temperature requirement for public 

restrooms of 110 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Since these are only capability and not 

set point requirements, no change in net 

building energy use is expected or 

assured. The 1989 edition also has a 

requirement that booster heaters be 

installed where outlet temperatures of 

more than 120 degrees Fahrenheit were 

required, which is absent in the 1999 

edition. The energy impact of dropping 

this requirement is highly dependent on 

the fuel source used by the booster 

heater. Generally, a slight increase in 

site energy use in specific applications 

might be expected, however, there may 

also be a corollary reduction in source 

energy use occurring from the reduced 

use of electric booster heaters (a cheap 

first cost alternative to meeting the 1989 

edition requirement). The net impact on 

hot water energy use is expected to be 

minimal. 

D. Energy Cost Budget 

For both editions, the Energy Cost 

Budget section provides a wholebuilding tradeoff methodology to allow 

innovative or unique buildings to 

comply with the standard. The Energy 

Cost Budget section requires the 

designer to simulate both a baseline 

building that complies with the 

standard and the actual design being 

proposed. The design building is not 

allowed to have a greater energy cost 

than the baseline building that complies 

with the standard. Neither edition of the 

standard allows designs to exceed the 

base standard, and as such, the 

stringency of the Energy Cost Budget 

method in each edition is roughly 

equivalent to the stringency that would 

be achieved if the building complied 

with the prescriptive requirements of 

the respective editions of the standard. 

E. Conclusion About Detailed Textual 

Analysis 

Our assessment of seven areas of 

change in the Lighting and Power 

sections of the two editions leads us to 

conclude that there will be a net 

positive increase of efficiency in 

commercial buildings from these 

revisions. Conversely. our assessment of 

the eleven areas of change in the 

Envelope section of the two editions 

leads us to conclude that there will be 

a net decrease in efficiency of 

commercial buildings due to these 

changes. Finally, our review of the 22 

areas of change in the Mechanical 

Equipment and Systems sections of the 

two editions leads us to conclude that 

these revisions will produce a net 

positive increase in the efficiency of 

commercial buildings. 

We therefore conclude from our 

detailed textual analysis that there will 

be a modest net gain from the changes. 

IV. Filing Certification Statements with 

DOE 

A. Review and Update 

On the basis of today's DOE 

determination, each State is required to 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 46485 

review and update the provisions of its 

commercial building code to meet or 

exceed the provisions of the 1999 

edition for any "building" within the 

meaning of Section 303(2) of the Energy 

Conservation and Production Act, as 

amended. This action must be taken not 

later than two years from the date of 

today's notice, unless an extension is 

provided. Section 304(b)(2)(B)(i) and (c). 

The Department recognizes that some 

States do not have a State commercial 

building code or have a code that does 

not apply to all commercial buildings. If 

local building codes regulate 

commercial building design and 

construction rather than a State code, 

the State must provide for review and 

update of those local codes to meet or 

exceed the 1999 edition. States may 

base their certifications on reasonable 

actions by units of general purpose local 

government. Each such State must still 

review the information obtained from 

the local governments and gather any 

additional data and testimony for its 

own certification. 

States should be aware that the 

Department considers high-rise (greater 

than three stories) multi-family 

residential buildings and hotel, motel, 

and other transient residential building 

types of any height as commercial 

buildings for energy code purposes. 

Consequently, commercial buildings, for 

the purposes of certification, would 

include high-rise (greater than three 

stories) multi-family residential 

buildings and hotel, motel, and other 

transient residential building types of 

any height. 

B. Certification 

Section 304(b) of ECP A requires each 

State to certify to the Secretary of 

Energy that it has reviewed and updated 

the provisions of its commercial 

building code regarding energy 

efficiency to meet or exceed the 1999 

edition. The certification must include a 

demonstration that the provisions of its 

commercial building energy code 

regarding energy efficiency, meet or 

exceed Standard 90-1999 for any 

"building" within the meaning of 

Section 303(2) of the Energy 

Conservation and Production Act, as 

amended. If a State intends to certify 

that its commercial building code 

already meets or exceeds the 

requirements of the 1999 edition, it 

would be appropriate for the State to 

provide an explanation of the basis for 

this certification, e.g., the 1999 edition 

is incorporated by reference in the 

State's building code regulations. The 

Department believes that it would be 

appropriate for the chief executive of 

the State (e.g., the Governor) to 

designate a State official, such as the 

Director of the State energy office, State 

code commission, utility commission, 

or equivalent State agency having 

primary responsibility for commercial 

building codes, to provide the 

certification to the Secretary. Such a 

designated State official could also 

provide the certifications regarding the 

codes of units of general purpose local 

government based on information 

provided by responsible local officials. 

C. Request for Extensions 

Section 304(c) of ECP A requires that 

the Secretary permit an extension of the 

deadline for complying with the 

certification requirements described 

above if a State can demonstrate that it 

has made a good faith effort to comply 

with such requirements and that it has 

made significant progress toward 

meeting its certification obligations. 

Such demonstrations could include one 

or more of the following: (1) A plan for 

response to the requirements stated in 

section 304; or (2) a statement that the 

State has appropriated or requested 

funds (within State funding procedures) 

to implement a plan that would respond 

to the requirements of section 304. 

D. Submittals 

When submitting any certification 

documents in response to this notice, 

the Department requests that the 

original documents be accompanied by 

one copy of the same. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2002. 

David K. Garman, 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

Appendix A. Description of Proposed 

Analysis 

At the February workshop we explained 

that the proposed analysis would provide 

qualitative comparisons of the stringencies 

between the two editions of Standard 90.1 in: 

(1) The scope of the standard: (2) the building 

envelope requirements; (3) the building 

lighting requirements; (4) the building 

mechanical equipment requirements; and (5) 

the paths to compliance. 

We stated that the proposed emphasis of 

the qualitative comparison would differ 

between the envelope, lighting, and 

mechanical sections. In the building 

envelope section, the comparison would 

focus on the impact of the different building 

envelope requirements on the building 

heating and cooling loads for different 

building types and climates. The envelope 

comparison would examine requirements for 

all envelope components, including roofs, 

walls, floors, and fenestration as well as 

explore variations in construction types and 

in the window-to-wall ratio. 

In the lighting requirements comparison, 

we explained that the proposed focus would 

be primarily on the impact the different 

lighting requirements have on lighting energy 

use, as well as on building loads. The 

comparison would look separately at the 

whole building and space-by-space lighting 

requirements in a variety of commercial 

building types, as well as examine the effect 

of any "additional lighting power 

allowances." 

We proposed that the mechanical 

requirements comparison be divided into 

comparisons of equipment efficiency 

requirements and system design 

requirements. We explained that the system 

design requirements affect both the system 

efficiency and system load impacts, and may 

have direct energy impacts as well. We also 

proposed that tables of relative stringency 

and estimated positive or negative national 

energy impact be prepared based on practical 

application of the system design 

requirements in each standard. 

We explained that each standard has 

multiple ways to demonstrate compliance. 

We proposed to enumerate the multiple 

paths to compliance, but did not propose to 

perform a detailed comparison of the relative 

stringency of alternate paths internal to a 

single standard or between standards. We 

explained that the large quantity of variables 

among the alternative compliance paths 

would make such analysis prohibitive to 

undertake. Further, we explained that we 

knew of no data on which to base the 

selection of representative requirements for 

such an analysis. Assignment of 

requirements would be arbitrary. Rather we 

proposed to focus on what we believed is the 

most common approach to using the standard 

in question for particular building types. 

Addressing the quantitative analysis, we 

proposed to base the quantitative comparison 

of energy codes on whole building energy 

simulations of buildings built to each 

standard. We proposed to simulate seven 

representative building types in 11 

representative U.S. climates. The simulated 

buildings would utilize the 15 zone building 

prototypes used in previous DOE building 

research, and the energy use intensities for 

each zone from the simulations would be 

scaled to correctly reflect variations in 

characteristic building sizes and shapes for 

each representative building type. Energy 

Use Intensities (EUis) developed for each 

representative building type would be 

weighted by total national square footage in 

each representative building category to 

provide an estimate of the national energy 

savings. 

We noted that only changes to 

requirements for new buildings would be 

considered in this quantitative analysis. 

Appendix B. Description of the 

Quantitative Analysis 

The analysis methodology is briefly 

described below. This is followed by a 

description of the input assumptions. 

I. Analysis Methodology 

To determine the aggregate impact of 

changes to the envelope, lighting, and 

mechanical sections of 90.1. a series of 

building simulations were made using the 

BLAST (Building Loads Analysis and System 

Thermodynamics) building simulation 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

46486 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 

software. Seven building types, shown in 

Table 15, were used in the analysis. These 

seven building types used represent 

approximately 80 percent of commercial 

building energy consumption, according to 

the Energy Information Administration's 

1995 Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS95) data. (The 

Office building type includes Outpatient 

Health Care at 76.6 thousand Btu per year.) 

TABLE 15.-ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY PRINCIPAL BUILDING ACTIVITY (TRILLION BTU) 

Building types simulated Annual energy 

use Percent of 

total 

Office ....................................................................................................................................................................... . 1,095 

973 

614 

461 

449 

332 

325 

20.6 

18.3 

11.5 

Mercantile and Service ........................................................................................................................................... . 

Education ................................................................................................................................................................ . 

Lodging ................................................................................................................................................................... . 8.7 

8.4 

6.2 

6.1 

Public Assembly ..................................................................................................................................................... . 

Food Service ........................................................................................................................................................... . 

Warehouse and Storage ......................................................................................................................................... . 

Total for above Categories ............................................................................................................................... 4,249 !--~~~~~-+~~~~~~ 

Total for all commercial buildings ..................................................................................................................... 5,323 79.8 

Construction variation within each 

building category was simulated using four 

different window to wall area ratios, both 

mass (such as dense masonry) and light 

frame wall construction types, and gas and 

electric heating fuel types. Two scenarios of 

economizer usage were simulated in each 

climate to account for the variation of 

economizer usage requirements in 

combination with equipment size. The 

buildings were simulated in 11 different 

Location HDD 65 

Denver, CO ...................... 6083 

Detroit, Ml ························ 5997 

Fresno, CA ....................... 2700 

Knoxville, TN .................... 3818 

Los Angeles, CA .............. 1494 

Minneapolis, MN .............. 8060 

Orlando, FL ...................... 532 

Phoenix, AZ ..................... 1382 

Providence, RI ................. 6022 

Seattle, WA ...................... 5281 

Shreveport, LA ................. 2265 

Tampa, FL ........................ 575 

In addition to simulating buildings that 

complied with the 1989 and 1999 editions, 

the changes in envelope. lighting and 

mechanical requirements were each 

separately simulated, without changing the 

1989 edition's requirements for the other 

components. Then, because the lighting and 

envelope requirements impact each other, 

particularly in the 1989 edition, the 

combined lighting and envelope requirement 

differences were analyzed, again without 

changing the 1989 edition's requirements for 

the other components. Calculating the 

difference between this combination and all 

1999 edition requirements allowed an 

assessment of the impact of the mechanical 

changes after adjusting for this thermal load 

shift. In all, six separate sets of requirement 

changes were simulated. 

climate locations (Table 16). The climate 

locations were chosen based on statistical 

cluster analysis of 234 Typical Mean Year 

weather data tapes and were chosen to be 

representative of the variation in climate 

found in the U.S. Several of the more 

significant climate parameters are shown in 

Table 16. These include, Heating Degree 

Days, base 65 degrees Fahrenheit (HDD 65); 

Vertical Solar radiation, in the North (VSN). 

East/West (VSEW). and South (VSS) 

orientations; Cooling Degree Day, base 50 

degrees Fahrenheit (CDD 50); minimum 

recorded outdoor temperatures for 99.6 

percent of the time for heating design 

calculations; maximum recorded Dry Bulb 

(DB) outdoor temperatures exceeded 1 

percent of the time for cooling design 

calculations; and maximum recorded Wet 

Bulb (WB) outdoor temperatures exceeded 

one percent of the time, also for cooling 

design calculations. 

TABLE 16.-CLIMATES LOCATIONS USED 

Cooling Cooling Heating VSN VSEW vss CDD 50 design (1% design 1% design 99.6 DB) WB) 

428 971 1321 2611 3 90 59 

390 676 858 3199 0 87 72 

459 1029 1199 5070 30 101 70 

446 762 898 4455 13 90 74 

482 962 1146 4456 43 81 64 

380 709 972 2751 16 88 71 

511 881 974 8288 37 93 76 

488 1116 1310 7830 34 108 70 

393 677 874 

350 621 828 

484 843 954 

518 890 974 

In total, 2464 simulations were performed 

for each set of requirement changes. A 

prototypical 48,000 ft 2 , 15-zone, slab-ongrade building was used for all the 

simulations. Simulation results for this 

prototypical building size were then scaled to 

reflect aggregate energy use in buildings 

across a wide range of sizes and shapes using 

Commercial Building Energy Consumption 

Survey building data. Single zone airconditioning and heating systems were 

assumed in the building model to permit this 

scaling. This simplification should result in 

a lower-bound estimate of energy savings 

with the standard as explained in mechanical 

system characterization below. 

2756 5 86 71 

1683 23 81 64 

6022 22 95 77 

7985 36 91 77 

II. Simulation Input Characterization 

A. Envelope 

The building envelope characteristics 

examined in the analysis were the opaque 

wall and roofU-factors, the fenestration Ufactors, either the fenestration Shading 

Coefficient requirements (in the 1989 edition) 

or Solar Heat Gain Coefficient requirements 

(in the 1999 edition), and the effective slab 

U-factors for slab on grade construction. 

These characteristics were determined for 

each set of requirement changes, building 

type, and climate combination simulated. 

The 1989 edition's envelope requirements 

simulated were based on the 1989 edition's 

Alternate Component Packages (ACP) tables. 

These tables represent the prescriptive 

compliance path for the 1989 edition's 

envelope requirements. Because the 1989 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

Federal Register I Vol. 67, No. 135 I Monday, July 15, 2002 I Notices 46487 

edition's requirements do not necessarily 

reflect the performance of typical building 

assemblies, the actual U-factors used in the 

simulations were chosen to reflect the Ufactors of real building assemblies which best 

approach, without being less stringent than, 

the U-value requirements of the standard. 

This is expected to be more representative of 

the real envelope performance resulting from 

application of the 1989 edition. Note that by 

being more stringent than the U-factor 

requirements, this procedure provides a conservative estimate of the envelope energy 

savings. 

In addition, the 1989 edition's ACP tables 

represent more stringent envelope 

requirements than that specified for most 

climates or buildings, using these equations 

outlined in Chapter 8 of the 1989 edition. 

The equations are embodied in the ENVSTD, 

version 2.4, software. For this reason. the use 

of the ACP tables as the basis for the 1989 

edition's envelope provides a lower 

boundary to the estimate of energy savings 

from the building envelope requirements. 

B. Lighting 

The lighting power density requirements 

were developed from the whole building 

lighting requirements for both the 1989 and 

1999 editions, for comparable building types, 

where available. The 1999 edition provides 

single value whole building lighting power 

density values for 31 different building types. 

The 1989 edition provides whole building 

lighting power density values for only 11 

different building types. However, it provides 

different lighting power densities for six 

different building size categories within each 

building type. In neither case do the whole 

building lighting power density values 

correspond perfectly to the building types 

simulated. The following procedure was used 

to develop whole building lighting numbers 

for each of these categories. 

1. Lighting Power-1989 Edition 

For office and warehouse building types, 

where there is a direct match with the 1989 

standard whole building lighting power 

categories, the lighting power density was estimated by weighting the whole lighting 

power density across the six building size 

categories by the fraction of each building 

type's floor space in each size category using 

CBECS95 data. 

In the case of Food Service and Education, 

the 1989 edition provides lighting power 

density values for subcategories of these 

building types. Food Service is composed of 

Fast Food/Cafeteria and Leisure Dining/Bar 

subcategories, Education is composed of 

Preschool/Elementary, Jr. High/High School. 

and Technical/Vocational subcategories. In 

these cases, first the lighting power densities 

for the different building sub types were 

averaged together for each building area 

category. Then, a weighting of these new 

lighting power densities by building size 

category was made, using CBEC's data for 

Food Service or Education building types, as 

appropriate. 

In the case of retail type buildings, the 

1989 edition has three basic retail building 

subcategories, Retail, "Mall Concourse, and 

"Service. Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey floor area data is 

categorized as Enclosed Shopping Center/ 

Mall, Retail (except Mall), Service (except 

Food), and Strip Shopping. To make a 

realistic weighting by retail type the 

following allocation of Commercial Building 

Energy Consumption Survey retail type floor 

area was made. 

TABLE 17.-ALLOCATION OF 

CBECS95 RETAIL TYPE FLOOR AREA 

Retail building categories-1989 edition 

Retail ........................ . 

Mall Concourse ........ . 

Service ..................... . 

Allocation of 

CBECS95 building 

category floor area 

Retail (except Mall) 

plus Strip Shopping 

plus half of Enclosed Shopping/ 

Mall. 

Half of Enclosed 

Shopping/Mall. 

Service (except 

Food). 

Then a weighted average of the allowed 

lighting power densities was constructed, 

using the 1989 edition's lighting power 

density values and the CBECS95 floor area 

data for each building type and size category. 

For Lodging and Public Assembly building 

types, the 1989 edition has no direct match 

in the whole building lighting power density 

TABLE 18.-LIGHTING POWER DENSITY 

[Watts/ft2] 

Building type 

tables. For a comparison of these building 

types, the 1989 edition's whole building 

lighting power density values were 

developed by applying the appropriate 1989 

edition's space-type lighting power density 

values (with appropriate Area Factor 

adjustments) to the building specific space 

type square footage data used in the 

development of the 1999 edition lighting 

power densities. The 1989 edition building 

specific space type data models the actual 

weighting of space type square footage, 

within a specific building type, based on 

actual current U.S. construction data. The 

lighting power density value for the Lodging 

category is made up of the average of the 

whole building lighting power densities 

constructed for the 1999 edition's building 

categories: Dormitory, Hotel, and Motel. The 

lighting power density value for the Public 

Assembly categories is similarly made up of 

the average 1999 edition's whole building 

lighting power density values for Convention 

Center, Motion Picture Theater, Performing 

Arts Theater, Town Hall, Sports Arena, 

Museum, and Gymnasium. 

2. Lighting Power-1999 Edition 

The 1999 edition provides single value, 

whole building, lighting power density 

requirements for Office, Retail, Education, 

and Warehouse buildings, and these 

requirements were used in the simulations. 

The 1999 edition does not provide single 

lighting power density values for Food 

Service, Lodging, or Public Assembly 

buildings. For these cases, the average whole 

building lighting power density 

requirements, for building types falling in 

each category, was taken to form a single 

lighting power density requirement. In these 

cases, the same specific building types used 

to develop the 1989 edition's lighting power 

density values were used to derive the 1999 

edition's lighting power densities for Lodging 

and Public Assembly building types. The 

1999 edition's Food Service value was 

derived as the average of the 1999 edition's 

three whole building food service building 

type values. 

Table 18 shows a comparison of Whole 

Building lighting requirements under both 

editions. 

1989 edition 1999 edition 

Education .................................................................................................................................................... . 1.79 

1.62 

1.53 

1.63 

1.72 

2.36 

0.53 

1.50 

1.73 

1.73 

1.30 

1.53 

1.90 

1.20 

Food Service ............................................................................................................................................... . 

Lodging ....................................................................................................................................................... . 

Offices ......................................................................................................................................................... . 

Public Assembly ........................................................................................................................................ .. 

Retail ........................................................................................................................................................... . 

Warehouse/Storage .................................................................................................................................... . 

C. Mechanical Equipment 

Single zone cooling and heating systems 

were used in the analysis. The choice of 

single zone system in the analysis is expected 

to provide a lower boundary to our estimate 

of cooling energy savings. First, this is 

because the improvement in the 1999 

edition's average efficiency requirements, for 

single zone cooling systems (typically unitary 

equipment), is relatively small compared to 

that for typical central system cooling 

equipment (typically water chillers). This is 

more obvious when one realizes that 

shipments of all products to commercial 

buildings includes residential type cooling 
EE-DET-02-001 COMMENT 04

46488 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 135/Monday, July 15, 2002/Notices 

products shipped to small commercial 

buildings. Additionally, modeling single 

zone systems does not take into account the 

fact that the 1999 edition has introduced 

requirements for central system heat rejection 

equipment, where none existed in the 1989 

edition. There is relatively little 

improvement in heating equipment 

efficiency requirements, in the 1999 edition, 

for equipment used in single zone systems 

(typically furnaces), or central systems 

(typically boilers). The impact of the 1999 

edition on heating energy use will typically 

be determined principally by changes in 

heating loads rather than heating equipment 

efficiency. 

1. Cooling Equipment 

Cooling equipment efficiencies were 

developed by weighting the energy efficiency 

rating for each of 20 categories of single zone 

cooling equipment in the standard, by an 

estimate of shipped cooling capacity for each 

category. The primary source of shipping 

data was 1998 U.S. Census Data. In the case 

of the less than 65,000 Btu per hour unitary 

air source heat pumps and air conditioners, 

this census data was augmented by our 

interpretation of Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute and Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory data on single 

phase air-conditioners and heat pumps 

shipped to commercial buildings. Using the 

weighting information and equipment 

efficiencies in each edition, the average 

unitary equipment efficiency requirement for 

commercial buildings increased 7.5 percent, 

from an average energy efficiency ratio of 

from 9.28 to 9.98. This improvement was 

simulated for all building types except 

Lodging. For Lodging, it was assumed that 

the majority of single zone cooling 

equipment would be packaged terminal 

equipment. The average efficiency 

requirement for packaged terminal 

equipment increased 22 percent, from 8.4 to 

10.28, based on a shipped capacity 

weighting. These efficiencies were used in 

the Lodging simulations for the respective 

Standard levels. 

2. Space Heating Equipment 

No change in heating equipment 

combustion efficiency is required in the 1999 

edition. However, for commercial furnaces, a 

reduction in the loss through the equipment 

casing from 1.5 percent to 0.75 percent was 

modeled to reflect differences in the 

requirements in the two editions. No change 

in furnace casing losses was assumed where 

electric resistance heat was assumed. 

3. Economizers 

For each building type, simulations were 

made both assuming economizer operation 

and not assuming economizer operation. 

Based on the economizer requirements in 

each edition and the available cooling 

equipment shipment data, shipped cooling 

capacity weights were developed for systems 

requiring economizer usage in each climate. 

4. Service Water Heating Equipment 

Service water heating equipment 

efficiencies increased from 78 percent to 80 

percent for most tank-type gas fired water 

heaters. This was reflected in the input 

assumptions. We did not account for 

shipments of residential size water heating 

equipment (regulated by manufacturing 

standards under Subpart C of 10 CFR 430) to 

commercial buildings. While these units may 

be used in some commercial buildings, 

increased efficiencies are the result of 

regulatory actions under 10 CFR 430, not 

Standard 90.1. Nor did we account for the 

use of tankless instantaneous water heaters in 

commercial buildings. Correctly accounting 

for shipped capacity of both the residential 

size and tankless equipment to commercial 

buildings would reduce the average 

efficiency improvement somewhat, but 

accurate shipment data to commercial 

buildings is largely unavailable. 

No change in water heater standby loss 

efficiencies was modeled. For fossil fuel fired 

equipment, the standby loss efficiencies 

within a given size category are essentially 

the same. While a different formulation of the 

standby loss equations was used in the 1999 

edition, there are both standby loss increases 

and decreases in any given product category. 

We are unaware of a data base that 

categorizes this data to permit accurate 

estimation of a net result. For electric water 

heaters, there appears to be a reduction in 

standby loss efficiency in the 1999 edition. 

However, the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended, does not 

permit the manufacture or sale of these lower 

efficiency products. Therefore, there is no 

predicted impact on actual buildings. 

D. Aggregation of Results 

Aggregation to a national estimate of 

energy use is based on energy use intensities 

(EUI) developed from simulations, under 

each edition. Aggregation of energy use 

intensity from the simulations was done as 

follows: (1) Extract zone-based energy use 

intensities from simulations; (2) aggregate 

results by required economizer usage in each 

climate; (3) map simulation results by 

climate to 11 geographical areas (augmented 

census divisions); (4) scale simulation results 

to existing building stock floor area by 

building type and census region; (5) weight 

results for frame and mass wall construction 

by appropriate building type and census 

region weights for these types of 

construction; ( 6) weight results for heating 

fuel by augmented census division weights 

for electric resistance heating usage in 

commercial buildings (Commercial Building 

Energy Consumption Survey data); (7) 

convert energy use intensities by fuel type to 

site energy, source energy, and energy cost 

intensities, by building type, and augmented 

census division; (8) weight energy use 

intensity results by building construction 

floor area estimates, by building type and in 

each augmented census division. The 

building construction data was derived from 

the Energy Information Administration's 

National Energy Modeling System data sets. 

[FR Doc. 02-17637 Filed 7-12-02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6451Hl1-P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. ER02-2126-001] 

Consolidated Edison Company of New 

York, Inc.; Notice of Filing 

July 9, 2002. 

Take notice that on June 28, 2002, 

Consolidated Edison Company of New 

York, Inc., (Con Edison) submitted for 

filing a revised unexecuted 

Interconnection Agreement between 

Con Edison and PSEG Power In-City I, 

LLC (PSEG Power) making a minor 

correction to the filing made on June 20, 

2002. This filing is made to correct a 

formatting error in the table of contents 

of the agreement. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest this filing should file with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 

214 of the Commission's rules of 

practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 

and 385.214). Protests will be 

considered by the Commission in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken. but will not serve to make 

protestants parties to the proceeding. 

Any person wishing to become a party 

must file a motion to intervene. All such 

motions or protests should be filed on 

or before the comment date, and, to the 

extent applicable, must be served on the 

applicant and on any other person 

designated on the official service list. 

This filing is available for review at the 

Commission or may be viewed on the 

Commission's web site at http:// 

www.ferc.gov using the "RIMS" link, 

select "Docket #" and follow the 

instructions (call 202-208-2222 for 

assistance). Protests and interventions 

may be filed electronically via the 

Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 

385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions 

on the Commission's web site under the 

"e-Filing" link. 

Comment Date: July 19, 2002. 

Linwood A. Watson, Jr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 02-17722 Filed 7-12-02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P